Defending Planet Earth: Near-Earth Object Surveys and Hazard Mitigation Strategies

Defending Planet Earth: Near-Earth Object Surveys and Hazard Mitigation Strategies Committee to Review Near-Earth-Obje...

Author: Committee to Review Near-Earth Object Surveys and Hazard Mitigation Strategies | Space Studies Board | National Research Council

15 downloads 390 Views 3MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

Defending Planet Earth: Near-Earth Object Surveys and Hazard Mitigation Strategies

Committee to Review Near-Earth-Object Surveys and Hazard Mitigation Strategies Space Studies Board Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.


THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS

500 Fifth Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20001

NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance. This study is based on work supported by Contract NNH06CE15B between the National Academy of Sciences and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the agency that provided support for the project. International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-309-14968-6 International Standard Book Number-10: 0-309-14968-1 Cover: Cover design by Tim Warchocki. Images courtesy of NASA (Earth) and Tim Warchocki (asteroid and stars). Copies of this report are available free of charge from: Space Studies Board National Research Council 500 Fifth Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20001 Additional copies of this report are available from the National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, N.W., Lockbox 285, Washington, DC 20055; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313 (in the Washington metropolitan area); Internet, http://www.nap.edu. Copyright 2010 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America



The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Charles M. Vest is president of the National Academy of Engineering. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. Charles M. Vest are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council. www.national-academies.org



OTHER RECENT REPORTS OF THE SPACE STUDIES BOARD AND THE AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ENGINEERING BOARD An Enabling Foundation for NASA’s Space and Earth Science Missions (Space Studies Board [SSB], 2010) Revitalizing NASA’s Suborbital Program: Advancing Science, Driving Innovation, and Developing a Workforce (SSB, 2010) America’s Future in Space: Aligning the Civil Space Program with National Needs (SSB with the Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board [ASEB], 2009) Approaches to Future Space Cooperation and Competition in a Globalizing World: Summary of a Workshop (SSB with ASEB, 2009) Assessment of Planetary Protection Requirements for Mars Sample Return Missions (SSB, 2009) Fostering Visions for the Future: A Review of the NASA Institute for Advanced Concepts (ASEB, 2009) Near-Earth Object Surveys and Hazard Mitigation Strategies: Interim Report (SSB with ASEB, 2009) A Performance Assessment of NASA’s Heliophysics Program (SSB, 2009) Radioisotope Power Systems: An Imperative for Maintaining U.S. Leadership in Space Exploration (SSB with ASEB, 2009) Assessing the Research and Development Plan for the Next Generation Air Transportation System: Summary of a Workshop (ASEB, 2008) A Constrained Space Exploration Technology Program: A Review of NASA’s Exploration Technology Development Program (ASEB, 2008) Ensuring the Climate Record from the NPOESS and GOES-R Spacecraft: Elements of a Strategy to Recover Measurement Capabilities Lost in Program Restructuring (SSB, 2008) Final Report of the Committee for the Review of Proposals to the 2008 Engineering Research and Commercialization Program of the Ohio Third Frontier Program (ASEB, 2008) Final Report of the Committee to Review Proposals to the 2008 Ohio Research Scholars Program of the State of Ohio (ASEB, 2008) Launching Science: Science Opportunities Provided by NASA’s Constellation System (SSB with ASEB, 2008) Managing Space Radiation Risk in the New Era of Space Exploration (ASEB, 2008) NASA Aeronautics Research: An Assessment (ASEB, 2008) Opening New Frontiers in Space: Choices for the Next New Frontiers Announcement of Opportunity (SSB, 2008) Review of NASA’s Exploration Technology Development Program: An Interim Report (ASEB, 2008) Science Opportunities Enabled by NASA’s Constellation System: Interim Report (SSB with ASEB, 2008) Severe Space Weather Events—Understanding Societal and Economic Impacts: A Workshop Report (SSB, 2008) Space Science and the International Traffic in Arms Regulations: Summary of a Workshop (SSB, 2008) United States Civil Space Policy: Summary of a Workshop (SSB with ASEB, 2008) Wake Turbulence: An Obstacle to Increased Air Traffic Capacity (ASEB, 2008) Limited copies of SSB reports are available free of charge from Space Studies Board National Research Council The Keck Center of the National Academies 500 Fifth Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20001 (202) 334-3477/[email protected] www.nationalacademies.org/ssb/ssb.html

NOTE: Listed according to year of approval for release, which in some cases precedes the year of publication.

iv



COMMITTEE TO REVIEW NEAR-EARTH-OBJECT SURVEYS AND HAZARD MITIGATION STRATEGIES

Steering Committee IRWIN I. SHAPIRO, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Chair MICHAEL A’HEARN, University of Maryland, College Park, Vice Chair FAITH VILAS, MMT Observatory at Mount Hopkins, Arizona, Vice Chair ANDREW F. CHENG, Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory FRANK CULBERTSON, JR., Orbital Sciences Corporation DAVID C. JEWITT, University of California, Los Angeles STEPHEN MACKWELL, Lunar and Planetary Institute H. JAY MELOSH, Purdue University JOSEPH H. ROTHENBERG, JHR Consulting Survey/Detection Panel FAITH VILAS, MMT Observatory at Mount Hopkins, Arizona, Chair PAUL ABELL, Planetary Science Institute ROBERT F. ARENTZ, Ball Aerospace and Technologies Corporation LANCE A.M. BENNER, Jet Propulsion Laboratory WILLIAM F. BOTTKE, Southwest Research Institute WILLIAM E. BURROWS, Independent Aerospace Writer and Historian ANDREW F. CHENG, Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory ROBERT D. CULP, University of Colorado, Boulder YANGA FERNANDEZ, University of Central Florida LYNNE JONES, University of Washington STEPHEN MACKWELL, Lunar and Planetary Institute AMY MAINZER, Jet Propulsion Laboratory GORDON H. PETTENGILL, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (retired) JOHN RICE, University of California, Berkeley Mitigation Panel MICHAEL A’HEARN, University of Maryland, College Park, Chair MICHAEL J.S. BELTON, Belton Space Exploration Initiatives, LLC MARK BOSLOUGH, Sandia National Laboratories CLARK R. CHAPMAN, Southwest Research Institute SIGRID CLOSE, Stanford University JAMES A. DATOR, University of Hawaii, Manoa DAVID S.P. DEARBORN, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory KEITH A. HOLSAPPLE, University of Washington DAVID Y. KUSNIERKIEWICZ, Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory PAULO LOZANO, Massachusetts Institute of Technology EDWARD D. McCULLOUGH, The Boeing Company (retired) H. JAY MELOSH, Purdue University DAVID J. NASH, Dave Nash & Associates, LLC DANIEL J. SCHEERES, University of Colorado, Boulder SARAH T. STEWART-MUKHOPADHYAY, Harvard University KATHRYN C. THORNTON, University of Virginia



Staff DWAYNE A. DAY, Study Director, Space Studies Board PAUL JACKSON, Study Director, Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board DAVID H. SMITH, Senior Program Officer, Space Studies Board ABIGAIL A. SHEFFER, Associate Program Officer LEWIS GROSWALD, Research Associate, Space Studies Board VICTORIA SWISHER, Research Associate, Space Studies Board (through July 2009) CATHERINE A. GRUBER, Editor, Space Studies Board ANDREA M. REBHOLZ, Program Associate, Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board RODNEY N. HOWARD, Senior Program Assistant, Space Studies Board

vi



SPACE STUDIES BOARD CHARLES F. KENNEL, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego, Chair A. THOMAS YOUNG, Lockheed Martin Corporation (retired), Vice Chair DANIEL N. BAKER, University of Colorado STEVEN J. BATTEL, Battel Engineering CHARLES L. BENNETT, Johns Hopkins University YVONNE C. BRILL, Aerospace Consultant ELIZABETH R. CANTWELL, Oak Ridge National Laboratory ANDREW B. CHRISTENSEN, Dixie State College and Aerospace Corporation ALAN DRESSLER, The Observatories of the Carnegie Institution JACK D. FELLOWS, University Corporation for Atmospheric Research FIONA A. HARRISON, California Institute of Technology JOAN JOHNSON-FREESE, Naval War College KLAUS KEIL, University of Hawaii MOLLY K. MACAULEY, Resources for the Future BERRIEN MOORE III, University of New Hampshire ROBERT T. PAPPALARDO, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology JAMES PAWELCZYK, Pennsylvania State University SOROOSH SOROOSHIAN, University of California, Irvine JOAN VERNIKOS, Thirdage LLC JOSEPH F. VEVERKA, Cornell University WARREN M. WASHINGTON, National Center for Atmospheric Research CHARLES E. WOODWARD, University of Minnesota ELLEN G. ZWEIBEL, University of Wisconsin MICHAEL MOLONEY, Director (from April 1, 2010) RICHARD E. ROWBERG, Interim Director (from March 2, 2009, to March 31, 2010) MARCIA S. SMITH, Director (until March 1, 2009)

vii



AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ENGINEERING BOARD RAYMOND S. COLLADAY, Lockheed Martin Astronautics (retired), Chair KYLE T. ALFRIEND, Texas A&M University AMY L. BUHRIG, Boeing Commercial Airplanes Group PIERRE CHAO, Center for Strategic and International Studies INDERJIT CHOPRA, University of Maryland, College Park JOHN-PAUL B. CLARKE, Georgia Institute of Technology RAVI B. DEO, Northrop Grumman Corporation (retired) MICA R. ENDSLEY, SA Technologies DAVID GOLDSTON, Harvard University R. JOHN HANSMAN, Massachusetts Institute of Technology JOHN B. HAYHURST, Boeing Company (retired) PRESTON HENNE, Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation RICHARD KOHRS, Independent Consultant IVETT LEYVA, Air Force Research Laboratory, Edwards Air Force Base ELAINE S. ORAN, Naval Research Laboratory ELI RESHOTKO, Case Western Reserve University EDMOND SOLIDAY, United Airlines (retired) MICHAEL MOLONEY, Director (from April 1, 2010) RICHARD E. ROWBERG, Interim Director (from March 2, 2009, to March 31, 2010) MARCIA S. SMITH, Director (until March 1, 2009)

viii



Dedication We dedicate this report to our beloved friend and colleague Steven J. Ostro (1946-2008), who devoted his professional life to the radar study of asteroids and other small bodies in the solar system. His deep understanding, unflagging concentration, and devotion to developing the potential of his junior colleagues led to many significant discoveries on the characteristics, dynamics, and unusual shapes of near-Earth objects.

ix



Preface

The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008, required NASA to ask the National Research Council (NRC) to conduct a study of near-Earth object (NEO) surveys and hazard mitigation strategies. Near-Earth objects orbit the Sun and approach or cross Earth’s orbit. In a June 2, 2008, letter, James L. Green, director, Planetary Science Division, NASA, and Craig Foltz, acting director, Astronomical Sciences Division, National Science Foundation (NSF), wrote to Lennard Fisk, then chair of the Space Studies Board, requesting that the Space Studies Board, in cooperation with the Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board, conduct a two-part study to address issues in the detection of potentially hazardous NEOs and approaches to mitigating identified hazards (see Appendix B). The ad hoc Committee to Review Near-Earth Object Surveys and Hazard Mitigation Strategies consisted of the Steering Committee, the Survey/Detection Panel, and the Mitigation Panel. The statement of task required the committee to include an assessment of the costs of various alternatives, using independent cost estimating. Options that blend the use of different facilities (ground- and space-based) or involve international cooperation were considered. Each study phase resulted in a report to be delivered on the schedule provided below. Key questions addressed during each phase of the study are the following: Task 1: NEO Surveys What is the optimal approach to completing the NEO census called for in the George E. Brown, Jr. Near-Earth Object Survey section of the 2005 NASA Authorization Act[] to detect,[] track, catalogue, and characterize the physical characteristics of at least 90 percent of potentially hazardous NEOs larger than 140 meters in diameter by the end of year 2020? Specific issues to be considered include, but are not limited to, the following: • What observational, data-reduction, and data-analysis resources are necessary to achieve the Congressional mandate of detecting, tracking, and cataloguing the NEO population of interest?

Consolidated Appropriations Act,

2008 (Public Law 110-161), Division B—Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2008. December 26, 2007. National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-155), January 4, 2005, Section 321, George E. Brown, Jr. Near-Earth Object Survey Act. The committee notes that the statement of task includes the term “detect,” which includes spotting asteroids that have previously been discovered. The committee therefore uses the more appropriate term “discover” to refer to the locating of previously unknown objects.

xi



xii

PREFACE

• What physical characteristics of individual objects above and beyond the determination of accurate orbits should be obtained during the survey to support mitigation efforts? • What role could be played by the National Science Foundation’s Arecibo Observatory in characterizing these objects? • What are possible roles of other ground- and space-based facilities in addressing survey goals, e.g., potential contributions of the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope (LSST) and the Panoramic Survey Telescope and Rapid Response System (Pan STARRS)? Task 2: NEO Hazard Mitigation What is the optimal approach to developing a deflection[] capability, including options with a significant international component? Issues to be considered include, but are not limited to, the following: • What mitigation strategy should be followed if a potentially hazardous NEO is identified? • What are the relative merits and costs of various deflection scenarios that have been proposed?

NASA and NSF requested an initial report for the first task no later than September 30, 2009. The committee delivered its interim report, containing only findings but no recommendations, in early August 2009. As indicated in Task 1 above, Congress charged the committee to recommend ways to discover and (partially) characterize 90 percent of NEOs exceeding 140 meters in diameter by the year 2020 (smaller objects are not discarded, once found). However, during its first meeting, the committee was explicitly asked by congressional staff to consider whether or not the congressionally established discovery goals should be modified.

The

committee interprets “deflection” to mean “orbit change.” Research Council, 2009, Near-Earth Object Surveys and Hazard Mitigation Strategies: Interim Report, The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C. National



Acknowledgments

This report has been reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in accordance with procedures approved by the Report Review Committee of the National Research Council (NRC). The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the institution in making its published report as sound as possible and to ensure that the report meets institutional standards for objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. We wish to thank the following individuals for their review of this report: James B. Armor, Jr., Major General, U.S. Air Force (retired), Erik Asphaug, University of California, Santa Cruz, Jack O. Burns, University of Colorado, Boulder, Robert L. Crippen, NASA astronaut (retired), Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, H. Keith Florig, Carnegie Mellon University, Alan W. Harris, Space Science Institute, Joan Johnson-Freese, U.S. Naval War College, Larry Niven, Author, Chatsworth, California, Norman H. Sleep, Stanford University, Ronald Turner, ANSER, and Bong Wie, Iowa State University. Although the reviewers listed above have provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations, nor did they see the final draft of the report before its release. The review of this report was overseen by Louis J. Lanzerotti, New Jersey Institute of Technology. Appointed by the NRC, he was responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with institutional procedures and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content of this report rests entirely with the authoring committee and the institution.

xiii



Contents

SUMMARY

1

1

7

INTRODUCTION References, 11

2 RISK ANALYSIS Inventory of Near-Earth Objects (NEOs) and Potentially Hazardous NEOs, 15 Introduction, 15 The Distribution of NEO Orbits, 16 The Size Distribution of NEOs and Potentially Hazardous NEOs, 17 Damage Produced by the Impact of NEOs, 19 Land Impacts That Are Incapable of Producing Global Effects, 20 Tsunamis Produced by Ocean Impacts, 21 Impacts Capable of Producing Global Effects, 21 Long-Period Comet Impacts, 22 Assessing the Hazard, 22 Warning Time for Mitigation, 25 Societal Elements of NEO Risks, 26 References, 27

12

3 SURVEY AND DETECTION OF NEAR-EARTH OBJECTS The Spaceguard Effort, 30 Minor Planet Center, 30 Near Earth Object Program Office, 31 Near-Earth-Objects Dynamic Site, 31 Past Near-Earth-Object Discovery Efforts, 31 Lowell Observatory Near-Earth-Object Search, 31 Near-Earth-Asteroid Tracking, 32

29

xv



xvi

CONTENTS

Present Near-Earth-Object Discovery Efforts, 32 Catalina Sky Survey, 32 Lincoln Near Earth Asteroid Research Program, 32 Spacewatch, 33 Current Space-Based Detection Efforts, 33 Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer for Near-Earth Objects (NEOWISE), 33 Canada’s Near-Earth-Object Surveillance Satellite, 34 Germany’s AsteroidFinder, 34 Addressing the 140-Meter Requirement: Future Ground- and Space-Based Near-Earth-Object Discovery Efforts, 34 Future Telescope Systems for Surveys of Near-Earth Objects, 35 Large Synoptic Survey Telescope, 35 Panoramic Survey Telescope and Rapid Response System 4, 37 Catalina Sky Survey Binocular Telescopes, 37 Discovery Channel Telescope, 40 Space-Based Detection Techniques, 41 0.5-Meter-Diameter Infrared Space Telescope, 42 NEO Survey Spacecraft, 42 Survey and Detection Schedules, 42 Low-Altitude Airburst NEOs: Advance Warning, 49 Imminent Impactors: NEOs on Final Approach to an Earth Impact, 49 References, 50 4 CHARACTERIZATION Ground-Based Remote Characterization, 51 The Role of Radar in the Characterization of Near-Earth Objects, 52 Arecibo Radar Observatory, 53 Goldstone Solar System Radar, 54 Capabilities of Arecibo and Goldstone, 56 Operational Reliability of Arecibo and Goldstone, 60 Arecibo and Goldstone Radar Operating Costs, 60 Recent Funding History of the Arecibo Radar, 61 Characterization Issues for Airbursts, 62 In Situ Characterization Relevant for Mitigation, 63 Human Missions to Near-Earth Objects, 64 References, 65

51

5 MITIGATION Civil Defense: Disaster Preparation and Recovery, 69 Slow-Push-Pull Methods, 70 Enhancement of Natural Effects, 71 Enhanced Evaporation of Surface Material, 71 Application of Contact Force, 72 Application of Gravitational Force, 72 Applicability of Slow-Push-Pull Mitigation Techniques, 73 Kinetic Impact Methods, 73 Description of Kinetic Impact and Its Use, 73 Summary, 74

66



xvii

CONTENTS

Nuclear Methods, 76 Models and Uncertainties, 76 Decades to Go—Standoff Burst, 77 Decades to Go—Small Surface Burst, 78 Conclusions, 78 Delivering Payloads to Near-Earth Objects, 80 Disruption, 84 Summary, 84 Bibliography, 87 6

RESEARCH

89

7

NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL COORDINATION AND COLLABORATION Existing Organizations, 92 National Cooperation, 93 International Cooperation, 94 Education and Public Outreach, 96 Reference, 96

92

8

OPTIMAL APPROACHES

97

APPENDIXES A B C D E

Independent Cost Assessment Letter of Request Committee, Panel, and Staff Biographical Information Minority Opinion—Mark Boslough, Mitigation Panel Member Glossary and Selected Acronyms


103 113 115 126 128


Summary

The United States spends about $4 million annually searching for near-Earth objects (NEOs), according to NASA. The goal is to detect those that may collide with Earth. The funding helps to operate several observatories that scan the sky searching for NEOs, but, as explained below, it is insufficient to detect the majority of NEOs that may present a tangible threat to humanity. A smaller amount of funding (significantly less than $1 million per year) supports the study of ways to protect Earth from such a potential collision (“mitigation”). Congress established two mandates for the search for NEOs by NASA. The first, in 1998 and now referred to as the Spaceguard Survey, called for the agency to discover 90 percent of NEOs with a diameter of 1 kilometer or greater within 10 years. An object of this limiting size is considered by many experts to be the minimum that could produce global devastation if it struck Earth. NASA is close to achieving this goal and should reach it within a few years. However, as the recent (2009) discovery of an approximately 2- to 3-kilometer-diameter NEO demonstrates, there are still large objects to be detected. The second mandate, established in 2005, known as the George E. Brown, Jr. Near-Earth Object Survey Act, called for NASA to detect 90 percent of NEOs 140 meters in diameter or greater by 2020. As the National Research Council’s (NRC’s) Committee to Review Near-Earth Object Surveys and Hazard Mitigation Strategies noted in its August 2009 interim report (NRC, 2009): Finding: Congress has mandated that NASA discover 90 percent of all near-Earth objects 140 meters in diameter or greater by 2020. The administration has not requested and Congress has not appropriated new funds to meet this objective. Only limited facilities are currently involved in this survey/discovery effort, funded by NASA’s existing budget.

“NEO” denotes “near-Earth object,” which has a precise technical meaning but can be usefully thought of as an asteroid or comet whose orbit approaches Earth’s orbit to within about one-third the average distance of Earth from the Sun. These objects are considered to be the only ones potentially capable of striking Earth, at least for the next century, except for comets that can enter the inner solar system from the outer system through the “slingshot” gravitational action of Jupiter. National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-155), January 4, 2005, Section 321, George E. Brown, Jr. Near-Earth Object Survey Act.



DEFENDING PLANET EARTH: NEAR-EARTH-OBJECT SURVEYS AND HAZARD MITIGATION STRATEGIES

Finding: The current near-Earth object surveys cannot meet the goals of the 2005 George E. Brown, Jr. Near-Earth Object Survey Act directing NASA to discover 90 percent of all near-Earth objects 140 meters in diameter or greater by 2020.

THE SURVEY AND DETECTION OF NEAR-EARTH OBJECTS The charge from Congress to the NRC committee was stated as two tasks (see the Preface for the full statement of task). The first asks for the “optimal approach” to completing the George E. Brown, Jr. Near-Earth Object Survey. The second asks for the same approach to developing a capability to avert an NEO-Earth collision and for options that include “a significant international component.” The committee concluded that there is no way to define “optimal” in this context in a universally acceptable manner: there are too many variables involved that can be both chosen and weighted in too many plausible ways. Recognizing this fact, the committee first took a broad look at all aspects of the hazards to Earth posed by NEOs and then decided on responses to the charge. The body of this report contains extensive discussions of these many issues. This summary concentrates on responses to the charge and at the end provides a few comments on some of the other main conclusions drawn from the report. Regarding the first task of its charge, the committee concluded that it is infeasible to complete the NEO census mandated in 2005 on the required time scale (2020), in part because for the past 5 years the administration has requested no funds, and the Congress has appropriated none, for this purpose. The committee concludes that there are two primary options for completing the survey: Finding: The selected approach to completing the George E. Brown, Jr. Near-Earth Object Survey will depend on nonscientific factors: • If the completion of the survey as close as possible to the original 2020 deadline is considered more important, a space mission conducted in concert with observations using a suitable ground-based telescope and selected by peer-reviewed competition is the better approach. This combination could complete the survey well before 2030, perhaps as early as 2022 if funding were appropriated quickly. • If cost conservation is deemed more important, the use of a large ground-based telescope is the better approach. Under this option, the survey could not be completed by the original 2020 deadline, but it could be completed before 2030. To achieve the intended cost-effectiveness, the funding to construct the telescope must come largely as funding from non-NEO programs. Multiple factors will drive the decision on how to approach completion of this survey. These factors include, but are not limited to, the perceived urgency for completing the survey as close as possible to the original 2020 deadline, the availability of funds to complete the survey, and the acceptability of the risk associated with the construction and operation of various ground- and space-based options. Of the ground-based options, the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope (LSST) and the Panoramic Survey Telescope and Rapid Response System, mentioned in the statement of task, and the additional options submitted to the committee in response to its public request for suggestions during the beginning of this study, the most capable appears to be the LSST. The LSST is to be constructed in Chile and has several science missions as well as the capability of observing NEOs. Although the primary mirror for the LSST has been cast and is being polished, the telescope has not been fully funded and is pending prioritization in the astronomy and astrophysics decadal survey of the NRC that is currently underway. Unless unexpected technical problems interfere, a space-based option should provide the fastest means to complete the survey. However, unlike ground-based telescopes, space options carry a modest launch risk and a more limited lifetime: ground-based telescopes have far longer useful lifetimes and could be employed for continued NEO surveys and for new science projects. (Ground-based telescopes generally have an annual operating cost that is approximately 10 percent of their design and construction costs.)



SUMMARY

The committee notes that objects smaller than 140 meters in diameter are also capable of causing significant damage to Earth. The best-known case from recent history is the 1908 impact of an object at Tunguska in the Siberian wilderness that devastated more than 2,000 square kilometers of forest. It has been estimated that the size of this object was on the order of approximately 70 meters in diameter, but recent research indicates that it could have been substantially smaller (30 to 50 meters in diameter), with much of the damage that it caused being due to shock waves from the explosion of the object in Earth’s atmosphere. (See, e.g., Chyba et al., 1993; Boslough and Crawford, 1997, 2008.) The committee strongly stresses that this new conclusion is preliminary and must be independently validated. Since smaller objects are more numerous than larger ones, however, this new result, if correct, implies an increase in the frequency of such events to approximately once in three centuries. All told, the committee was struck by the many uncertainties that suffuse the subject of NEOs, including one other related example: Do airbursts from impactors in this size range over an ocean cause tsunamis that can severely damage a coastline? This uncertainty and others have led the committee to the following recommendation: Recommendation: Because recent studies of meteor airbursts have suggested that near-Earth objects as small as 30 to 50 meters in diameter could be highly destructive, surveys should attempt to detect as many 30- to 50-meter-diameter objects as possible. This search for smaller-diameter objects should not be allowed to interfere with the survey for objects 140 meters in diameter or greater. In all cases, the data-reduction and data-analysis resources necessary to achieve the congressional mandate would be covered by the survey projects themselves and by a continuation of the current funding of the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory’s Minor Planet Center, as discussed in the report. CHARACTERIZATION AND THE ARECIBO AND GOLDSTONE OBSERVATORIES Obtaining the orbits and the physical properties of NEOs is known as characterization and is primarily needed to inform planning for any active defense of Earth. Such defense would be carried out through a suitable attack on any object predicted with near certainty to otherwise collide with Earth and cause significant damage. The apparently huge variation in the physical properties of NEOs seems to render infeasible the development of a comprehensive inventory through in situ investigations by suitably instrumented spacecraft: the costs would be truly astronomical. A spacecraft reconnaissance mission might make good sense to conduct on an object that, without human intervention, would hit Earth with near certainty. Such a mission would be feasible provided there was sufficient warning time for the results to suitably inform the development of an attack mission to cause the object to miss colliding with Earth. In addition to spacecraft reconnaissance missions as needed, the committee concluded that vigorous, groundbased characterization at modest cost is important for the NEO task. Modest funding could support optical observations of already-known and newly discovered asteroids and comets to obtain some types of information on this broad range of objects, such as their reflectivity as a function of color, to help infer their surface properties and mineralogy, and their rotation properties. In addition, the complementary radar systems at the Arecibo Observatory in Puerto Rico and the Goldstone Solar System Radar in California are powerful facilities for characterization within their reach in the solar system, a maximum of about one-tenth of the Earth-Sun distance. Arecibowhich has a maximum sensitivity about 20-fold higher than Goldstone’s but does not have nearly as good sky coverage as Goldstonecan, for example, model the three-dimensional shapes of (generally very odd-shaped) asteroids and estimate their surface characteristics, as well as determine whether an asteroid has a (smaller) satellite or satellites around it, all important to know for planning active defense. Also, from a few relatively closely spaced (in time) observations, radar can accurately determine the orbits of NEOs, which has the advantage of being able to calm public fears quickly (or possibly, in some cases, to show that they are warranted). Finding: The Arecibo and Goldstone radar systems play a unique role in the characterization of NEOs, providing unmatched accuracy in orbit determination and offering insight into size, shape, surface structure, and other properties for objects within their latitude coverage and detection range.




Recommendation: Immediate action is required to ensure the continued operation of the Arecibo Observatory at a level sufficient to maintain and staff the radar facility. Additionally, NASA and the National Science Foundation should support a vigorous program of radar observations of NEOs at Arecibo, and NASA should support such a program at Goldstone for orbit determination and the characterization of physical properties. For both Arecibo and Goldstone, continued funding is far from assured, not only for the radar systems but for the entire facilities. The incremental annual funding required to maintain and operate the radar systems, even at their present relatively low levels of operation, is about $2 million at each facility (see Chapter 4). The annual funding for Arecibo is approximately $12 million. Goldstone is one of the three deep-space communications facilities of the Deep Space Network, and its overall funding includes additional equipment for space communications. MITIGATION “Mitigation” refers to all means of defending Earth and its inhabitants from the effects of an impending impact by an NEO. Four main types of defense are discussed in this report. The choice of which one(s) to use depends primarily on the warning time available and on the mass and speed of the impactor. The types of mitigation are these: 1. Civil defense. This option may be the only one feasible for warning times shorter than perhaps a year or two, and depending on the state of readiness for applying an active defense, civil defense may be the only choice for even longer times. 2. “Slow-push” or “slow-pull” methods. For these options the orbit of the target object would be changed so that it avoided collision with Earth. The most effective way to change the orbit, given a constraint on the energy that would be available, is to change the velocity of the object, either in or opposite to the direction in which it is moving (direct deflection—that is, moving the object sideways—is much less efficient). These options take considerable time, on the order of decades, to be effective, and even then they would be useful only for objects whose diameters are no larger than 100 meters or so. 3. Kinetic impactors. In these mitigation scenarios, the target’s orbit would be changed by the sending of one or more spacecraft with very massive payload(s) to impact directly on the target at high speed in its direction, or opposite to its direction, of motion. The effectiveness of this option depends not only on the mass of the target but also on any net enhancement resulting from material being thrown out of the target, in the direction opposite to that of the payload, upon impact. 4. Nuclear explosions. For nontechnical reasons, this would likely be a last resort, but it is also the most powerful technique and could take several different forms, as discussed in the report. The nuclear option would be usable for objects up to a few kilometers in diameter. For larger NEOs (more than a few kilometers in diameter), which would be on the scale that would inflict serious global damage and, perhaps, mass extinctions, there is at present no feasible defense. Luckily such events are exceedingly rare, the last known being about 65 million years ago. Of the foregoing options, only kinetic impact has been demonstrated (by way of the very successful Deep Impact spacecraft that collided with comet Tempel-1 in July 2006). The other options have not advanced past the conceptual stage. Even Deep Impact, a 10-kilometer-per-second impact on a 6-kilometer-diameter body, was on a scale far lower than would be required for Earth defense for an NEO on the order of 100 meters in diameter, and it impacted on a relatively large—and therefore easier to hit—object. Although the committee was charged in its statement of task with determining the “optimal approach to developing a deflection capability,” it concluded that work in this area is relatively new and immature. The committee therefore concluded that the “optimal approach” starts with a research program.



SUMMARY

FURTHER RESEARCH Struck by the significant unknowns in many aspects of NEO hazards that could yield to Earth-based research, the committee recommends the following: Recommendation: The United States should initiate a peer-reviewed, targeted research program in the area of impact hazard and mitigation of NEOs. Because this is a policy-driven, applied program, it should not be in competition with basic scientific research programs or funded from them. This research program should encompass three principal task areas: surveys, characterization, and mitigation. The scope should include analysis, simulation, and laboratory experiments. This research program does not include mitigation space experiments or tests that are treated elsewhere in this report. NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION Responding effectively to hazards posed by NEOs requires the joint efforts of diverse institutions and individuals, with organization playing a key role. Because NEOs are a global threat, efforts to deal with them could involve international cooperation from the outset. (However, this is one area in which one nation, acting alone, could address such a global threat.) The report discusses possible means to organize, both nationally and internationally, responses to the hazards posed by NEOs. Arrangements at present are largely ad hoc and informal here and abroad, and they involve both government and private entities. The committee discussed ways to organize the national community to deal with the hazards of NEOs and also recommends an approach to international cooperation: Recommendation: The United States should take the lead in organizing and empowering a suitable international entity to participate in developing a detailed plan for dealing with the NEO hazard. One major concern with such an organization, especially in the area of preparing for disasters, is the maintenance of attention and morale, given the expected exceptionally long intervals between harmful events. Countering the tendency to complacency would be a continuing challenge. This problem would be mitigated if, for example, the civil defense aspects were combined in the National Response Framework with those for other natural hazards. RECENT NEAR-EARTH-OBJECT-RELATED EVENTS The U.S. Department of Defense, which operates sensors in Earth orbit capable of detecting the high-altitude explosion of small NEOs, has in the past shared this information with the NEO science community. The committee concluded that this data sharing is important for understanding issues such as the population size of small NEOs and the hazard that they pose. This sharing is also important for validating airburst simulations, characterizing the physical properties of small NEOs (such as their strength), and assisting in the recovery of meteorites. Recommendation: Data from NEO airburst events observed by the U.S. Department of Defense satellites should be made available to the scientific community to allow it to improve understanding of the NEO hazards to Earth. In 2008, Congress passed the Consolidated Appropriations Act calling for the Office of Science and Tech nology Policy to determine by October 2010 which agency should be responsible for conducting the NEO survey and detection and mitigation program. Several agencies are possible candidates for such a role. During its deliberations the committee learned of several efforts outside the United States to develop spacecraft to search for categories of NEOs. In particular, Canada’s Near-Earth-Object Surveillance Satellite, or NEOSSat, Consolidated Appropriations Act,

2008 (Public Law 110-161), Division B—Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropria-

tions Act, 2008. December 26, 2007.




and Germany’s AsteroidFinder are interesting and capable small-scale missions that will detect a small percentage of specific types of NEOs, those primarily inside Earth’s orbit. These spacecraft will not accomplish the goals of the George E. Brown, Jr. Near-Earth Object Survey Act of 2005. However, they highlight the fact that other countries are beginning to consider the NEO issue seriously. Such efforts also represent an opportunity for future international cooperation and coordination in the search for potentially hazardous NEOs. In addition, the committee was impressed with the European Space Agency’s early development of the Don Quijote spacecraft mission, which would consist of an observing spacecraft and a kinetic impactor. This mission, though not funded, would have value for testing a mitigation technique and could still be an opportunity for international cooperation in this area. Finally, the committee points out a current estimate of the long-term average annual human fatality rate from impactors: slightly under 100 (Harris, 2009). At first blush, one is inclined to dismiss this rate as trivial in the general scheme of things. However, one must also consider the extreme damage that could be inflicted by a single impact; this presents the classic problem of the conflict between “extremely important” and “extremely rare.” The committee considers work on this problem as insurance, with the premiums devoted wholly toward preventing the tragedy. The question then is: What is a reasonable expenditure on annual premiums? The committee offers a few possibilities for what could perhaps be accomplished at three different levels of funding (see Chapter 8); it is, however, the political leadership of the country that determines the amount to be spent on scanning the skies for potential hazards and preparing our defenses. REFERENCES Boslough, M., and D. Crawford. 2008. Low-altitude airbursts and the impact threat. International Journal of Impact Engineering 35:1441-1448. Boslough, M.B.E., and D.A. Crawford. 1997. Shoemaker-Levy 9 and plume-forming collisions on Earth. Near-Earth Objects, the United Nations International Conference: Proceedings of the International Conference held April 24-26, 1995, in New York, N.Y. (J.L. Remo, ed.). Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 822:236-282. Chyba, C.F., P.J. Thomas, and K.J. Zahnle. 1993. The 1908 Tunguska explosion—Atmospheric disruption of a stony asteroid. Nature 361:40-44. Harris, A.W., Space Science Institute. 2009. The NEO population, impact risk, progress of current surveys, and prospects for future surveys, presentation to the Survey/Detection Panel of the NRC Committee to Review Near-Earth Object Surveys and Hazard Mitigation Strategies, January 28-30, 2009. NRC (National Research Council). 2009. Near-Earth Object Surveys and Hazard Mitigation Strategies: Interim Report, The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., available at http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12738, pp. 1-2.



1 Introduction

Our planet inhabits a hazardous environment. Earth is continually bombarded by cosmic objects. Luckily for its inhabitants, most of these objects are very small and cause no harm to life. Some, however, are large and cause considerable harm. Evidence of these collisions, large and small, is abundant, from the dense defacement of Mercury and the Moon to the craters festooning the surfaces of even small asteroids. Although impacts of cosmic objects on Earth have occurred since its very formation, humanity has been at best dimly aware of these events until very recently. Only two centuries ago it was widely doubted that objects orbiting the Sun could or would collide with Earth. In general, scientists cannot predict precise times and locations of future impacts but can make statistical statements about the probability of an impact. Objects larger than about 30 meters in diameter probably strike Earth only about once every few centuries, and objects greater than about 300 meters in diameter only once per hundred millennia. Even objects only 30 meters in diameter can cause immense damage. The cosmic intruder that exploded over Siberia in 1908 may have been only a few tens of meters in size, yet this explosion severely damaged a forest of more than 2,000 square kilometers (Chyba, 1993; Boslough and Crawford, 1997, 2008). Had an airburst of such magnitude occurred over New York City, hundreds of thousands of deaths might have resulted. Assessing risk is difficult primarily because of the lack of sufficient data. The committee’s best current estimates are given in Chapter 2, where the risk is presented, with its dependence on impactor size and associated average impact frequency, along with damage estimates in terms of lives and property. Figure 1.1 illustrates the estimated frequency of near-Earth object (NEO) impacts on Earth for a range of NEO sizes. For impactor diameters exceeding about 2 to 3 kilometers, worldwide damage is possible, thus affecting all of humanity and its entire living space (the minimum size at which impactors can cause global devastation is still uncertain). While such a collision is exceedingly rare, the consequences are enormous, almost incalculable. This presents the classic “zero times infinity” problem: nearly zero probability of occurrence but nearly infinite devastation per occurrence. Humanity has the capacity to detect and perhaps to counter such an impending natural disaster. This capacity, and interest in exercising it, have developed and sharply increased in the space age, most likely sparked by the discovery in the late 1980s of the approximately 200-kilometer-diameter Chicxulub Crater formed by an impact “NEO”

denotes near-Earth object, which has a precise technical meaning, but can be usefully thought of as an asteroid or comet whose orbit approaches Earth’s orbit to within about one-third the average distance of Earth from the Sun. These objects are considered to be the only ones potentially capable of striking Earth, at least for the next century, except for comets that can enter the inner solar system from the outer system through the “slingshot” gravitational action of Jupiter.




Diameter of impactor, km FIGURE 1.1 Current estimates of the average interval in years between collisions with Earth of near-Earth objects of various sizes, from about 3 meters to 9 kilometers in diameter. The uncertainty varies from point to point, but in each case is on the order of a factor of two; there is also a strong correlation of the values from point to point. SOURCE: Courtesy of Alan W. Harris, Space Science Institute.

65 million years ago in the Yucatan Peninsula. The asteroid or comet that caused this crater is estimated to have been about 10 kilometers in diameter; its impact wrought global devastation, likely snuffing out species, including dinosaurs, in huge numbers. Later, in the 1990s, the collision of comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 with Jupiter emphasized that impacts are currently possible. To assess the current hazards, surveys were undertaken in the 1970s and were greatly augmented in the 1990s in order to discover and track all NEOs to determine the likelihood that one or more would collide with Earth. These surveys, involving relatively small telescopes whose primary mirrors ranged in diameter from 0.6 to 1.2 meters, were seeking objects with diameters greater than 1 kilometer; also detected were many smaller objects that approached Earth closely enough to be seen. Congress requested that the National Research Council (NRC) undertake a study, sponsored by NASA, to address two tasks: Task 1: NEO Surveys What is the optimal approach to completing the NEO census called for in the George E. Brown, Jr. Near-Earth Object Survey section of the 2005 NASA Authorization Act[] to detect,[] track, catalogue, and characterize the physical Brightness

is the key determinant of detectability; the apparent brightness of an object as seen from Earth varies with the inverse square of its distance from Earth (e.g., twice as close implies four times as bright). National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-155), January 4, 2005, Section 321, George E. Brown, Jr. Near-Earth Object Survey Act. The committee notes that the statement of task includes the term “detect,” which includes spotting asteroids that have previously been discovered. The committee therefore uses the more appropriate term “discover” to refer to the locating of previously unknown objects.



INTRODUCTION

characteristics of at least 90 percent of potentially hazardous NEOs larger than 140 meters in diameter by the end of year 2020? Specific issues to be considered include, but are not limited to, the following: • What observational, data-reduction, and data-analysis resources are necessary to achieve the Congressional mandate of detecting, tracking, and cataloguing the NEO population of interest? • What physical characteristics of individual objects above and beyond the determination of accurate orbits should be obtained during the survey to support mitigation efforts? • What role could be played by the National Science Foundation’s Arecibo Observatory in characterizing these objects? • What are possible roles of other ground- and space-based facilities in addressing survey goals, e.g., potential contributions of the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope (LSST) and the Panoramic Survey Telescope and Rapid Response System (Pan STARRS)? Task 2: NEO Hazard Mitigation What is the optimal approach to developing a deflection[] capability, including options with a significant international component? Issues to be considered include, but are not limited to, the following: • What mitigation strategy should be followed if a potentially hazardous NEO is identified? • What are the relative merits and costs of various deflection scenarios that have been proposed?

In response to this assignment from Congress, the National Research Council created a steering committee— the Committee to Review Near-Earth Object Surveys and Hazard Mitigation Strategies—and two panels (one for each task: the Survey/Detection Panel and the Mitigation Panel) to undertake a study to address these issues. Although the possibility of a large NEO impact with Earth is remote, conducting surveys of NEOs and studying means to mitigate collisions with them can best be viewed as a form of insurance. It seems prudent to expend some resources to prepare to counter this collision threat. Most homeowners, for example, carry fire insurance, although no one expects her or his house to burn down anytime soon. The distinction between insurance for the NEO collision hazard and other “natural” hazards, such as earthquakes and hurricanes, is that the possibility of detecting and preventing most serious collisions now exists. In the case of earthquakes, for example, despite extensive efforts, primarily in China, Japan, and the United States, neither the epoch nor the severity of an earthquake can yet be reliably predicted. Governments do nonetheless fund the analog of an insurance policy through studies of this hazard and through the design and construction of earthquake-resistant structures and in development of plans for response and recovery. The goal is to reduce both the number of fatalities and the damage to property from earthquakes. According to figures from the NRC (2006) report Improved Seismic MonitoringImproved Decision-Making: Assessing the Value of Reduced Uncertainty, the United States alone now spends well in excess of $100 million annually on this suite of earthquake-related efforts. The annual death rate in the United States from earthquakes, averaged over the past two centuries for which data are available, is approximately 20 per year, with 75 percent of that figure attributed to the 1906 San Francisco Earthquake, mostly from related fires. For Japan, both the expenditure and the fatality figures are far larger. China and other parts of Asia have also suffered massive casualties from earthquakes. The September 2009 earthquakes that caused loss of life in Indonesia, Samoa, and American Samoa, and the devastating January 2010 earthquake in Haiti and February 2010 earthquake in Chile, highlight this ongoing threat to human life. Given the low risk over a period of, say, a decade (see Chapter 2), how much should the United States invest in NEO insurance? This question requires a political, not a scientific, answer. Yet the question bears on the committee’s charge. The committee was asked to recommend the optimal approach for each of the tasks, with the definition of “optimal” left to the committee. A unique characteristic of the “NEO research premiums,” which distinguishes them from the usual types of insurance, is that the premiums would be directed entirely toward the prevention of the catastrophe.

The

committee interprets “deflection” to mean “orbit change.”



10


In no case, however, is it wise to consider the application of techniques more than a few decades into the future. The technologies available at that time would likely be both more efficient and more effective, rendering present approaches obsolete. However, it is not wise to wait for those future technologies, leaving Earth unaware and threats to Earth unmitigated in the meantime. The remainder of this report is devoted to a description of the various aspects of the hazard that the committee has considered, to its findings and recommendations in response to the charge, and to its prioritization of the recommendations in the context of the committee’s somewhat arbitrarily chosen alternative budget levels for funding an NEO program. In particular, Chapter 2 is directed toward clarifying, as well as is now feasible, the risks associated with asteroid and comet hazards and the uncertainties in current knowledge of those risks. These studies of risk include both small and large potential impactors, their various possible orbits, the effects of airburst and ocean impacts, and the key issue of warning time. Chapter 3 contains the committee’s analysis of the survey and detection questions, including currently mandated goals, their possible modifications, and the possible meansground- and/or space-based methodsof achieving them. Chapter 4 addresses characterization, the gathering of information on the properties of asteroids and comets that form the pool of potential impactors. The emphasis is on asteroids and on properties that would importantly affect any attempts at an active defense of Earth against an impending impact. The various properties of relevance are listed and their importance explained. Methods are described for characterization, ranging from laboratory studies of meteorites, through detailed observations of airbursts, to ground- and space-based remote and in situ observations of samples from the pool. This chapter also devotes special attention to the role of radar observations, consistent with the study’s charge, and to the complementary nature of the various means for characterization. A vital issue is the wide variation in the key properties from one object to another. Chapter 5 addresses mitigation, examining the available techniques and the situations for which each is applicable. The goal is to avoid a collision through changing the orbit of (or destroying) an impactor headed for Earth. The committee also examined the state of (un)readiness of each technique and discussed the developments and tests needed to establish confidence that the countermeasures would work when called on. As to the deployment of any countermeasure, a main guide is the ancient maxim “First, do no harm.” Obedience to this admonition is not so trivial as it might appear. With the years-long warning times likely needed to complete a mitigation mission successfully, the corresponding accuracy of prediction of the impact might well be poor. In particular, the error ellipse that describes the uncertainty in the prediction of impact might well not approach the near-certainty desired, indicating the need for caution. The committee’s work uncovered many facets of the overall problem that need attention in order to enable the sensible planning and execution of the options that were considered. The committee therefore recommends a research program, discussed in Chapter 6, to address these issues. Included among these topics are airbursts from impactors in the decameter-size range, with various compositions and structures, as well as the current distribution in the sky of objects that could impact Earth over, say, the next century or so. This proposed research program should include peer evaluation of proposals. The collision hazard posed by cosmic objects is, as noted, global. It therefore seems sensible to deal with this hazard in its international context. Also needed is national leadership and responsibility. Chapter 7 discusses such leadership, noting that the Office of Science and Technology Policy has been tasked with addressing this issue. In Chapter 7, the committee emphasizes international aspectsorganization, coordinated activities and responsibilities, and means for settling disputes that might arise in the planning stages and especially from a failed mitigation effort. The committee was asked to produce independent cost estimates of typical solutions that it considered for survey completion and mitigation. To this end, the NRC contracted with Science Applications International Corporation to use parametric models and other statistical techniques to produce estimates of these options. However, the committee notes that many of these options are technically immature and that cost estimates at this early stage of development are notoriously unreliable. At best, these cost estimates provide only crude approximations of final costs of pursuing any of these options, so the committee did not use these cost estimates in reaching its conclusions. The cost estimates are included in Appendix A.



11

INTRODUCTION

Throughout this report, the committee sought to eliminate jargon and acronyms whenever possible, although the nature of the report required some specialized vocabulary. The committee added a Glossary as Appendix E to provide clarity. REFERENCES Boslough, M., and D. Crawford. 2008. Low-altitude airbursts and the impact threat. International Journal of Impact Engineering 35:1441-1448. Boslough, M.B.E., and D.A. Crawford. 1997. Shoemaker-Levy 9 and plume-forming collisions on Earth. Near-Earth Objects, the United Nations International Conference: Proceedings of the International Conference held April 24-26, 1995, in New York, N.Y. (J.L. Remo, ed.). Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 822:236-282. Chyba, C. 1993. Death from the sky. Astronomy 21:38-45. Errata in C. Chyba. 1993. Tunguska corrections. Astronomy 22:12. NRC (National Research Council). 2006. Improved Seismic Monitoring—Improved Decision-Making: Assessing the Value of Reduced Uncertainty. The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C..



2 Risk Analysis

Impacts are one of the most fundamental processes shaping planetary surfaces throughout the solar system. Images of many solar system objects are dominated by craters formed throughout the past 4.5 billion years. Smaller airless bodies in particular retain a significant history of collisions. Earth’s Moon has been used to determine variation in the rate of impacts since the earliest days of the solar system. Imagery, coupled with the dating of lunar materials, has allowed scientists to demonstrate that the rate of impacts has gradually diminished since these early times. Although the frequency of impacts due to bodies of all sizes is considerably less than during the first 700 million years of solar system history, as the planetary orbits have stabilized and a significant proportion of the smaller objects has been accreted, the most significant risk remains from collisions with bodies on oval-shaped orbits (such as comets) and objects with orbits that pass near Earth’s orbit. The average amount of material accreted daily to Earth is estimated to be in the range of 50 to 150 tons of very small objects (Love and Brownlee, 1993). This material is mostly dust, although there are abundant small objects that burn up quickly in the atmosphere and are evidenced by meteor trails. More rarely, larger objects impact Earth. It is now widely believed that the impact of an approximately 10-kilometer-diameter object formed the Chicxulub Crater near the Yucatan Peninsula about 65 million years ago, very likely resulting in the extinction of the dinosaurs. Its mass is similar to that of the total amount of dust and other small objects accreted to Earth during the time since that impact. Substantial atmospheres around planetary bodies act as significant filters to incoming objects. Smaller objects, particularly those that are lower in density and more fragile, vaporize in the upper reaches of the atmosphere, while more intact, larger bodies may survive to impact the surface. Thus, small craters are much less common on bodies with dense atmospheres, such as Earth, Venus, and Titan, than they are on Mercury and the Moon, with Mars somewhere in between. Of course there are still substantial numbers of large impact craters even on Venus, with its dense carbon dioxide atmosphere; the lack of weathering and erosion, coupled with low rates of volcanic and tectonic activity over the past 0.5 billion years, has allowed the retention there of a significant number of craters, most largely unaltered since emplacement. By contrast, the movement of water on Earth and the action of plate tectonics have both resulted in the loss of much of the cratering record on this planet. There are more than 170 established impact craters on Earth, including the approximately 1.2-kilometer Meteor Crater in Arizona (Figure 2.1). The largest known terrestrial crater is the 300-kilometer-diameter Vredefort Crater in South Africa, dated at around 2 billion years old. 12



13

RISK ANALYSIS

FIGURE 2.1 Meteor Crater (also known as Barringer Crater) in Arizona, with the Great Pyramids of Giza and the Sphinx inserted for size comparison. One of the most familiar impact features on the planet, this crater is about 1,200 meters in diameter and 170 meters deep; the interior of the crater contains about 220 meters of rubble overlying bedrock. The crater was formed about 50,000 years ago through the impact of an approximately 40-meter iron-nickel meteorite moving at about 13 kilometers per second (Melosh and Collins, 2005). SOURCE: Crater image courtesy of U.S. Geological Survey; composite created by Tim Warchocki.

Over the past several decades, research has clearly demonstrated that major impact events have occurred throughout Earth’s history, often with catastrophic consequences. The Chicxulub impact apparently caused a mass extinction of species, possibly resulting from a global firestorm due to debris from the impact raining down around the planet. It may also have caused dramatic cooling for a year or more and global climatic effects that may have lasted a long time (e.g., O’Keefe and Ahrens, 1989). Many species became extinct at this time (including perhaps 30 percent of marine animal genera), but many survived and ultimately thrived in the post-dinosaur world. It may be that impacts throughout the history of this planet have strongly helped shape the development and evolution of life forms. Several recent events and new analyses have highlighted the impact threat to Earth: 1. As Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 came close to Jupiter in 1992, tidal forces caused it to separate into many smaller fragments that then may have regrouped by means of self-gravity into at least 21 distinct pieces (e.g., Asphaug and Benz, 1994). These pieces impacted Jupiter in July 1994, creating a sequence of visible impacts into the gaseous Jovian atmosphere. The resultant scars in Jupiter’s atmosphere could be readily seen through Earthbased telescopes for several months. In July 2009, a second object, though much smaller than Shoemaker-Levy 9, impacted Jupiter, also causing a visible dark scar in the Jovian atmosphere. Such clear evidence of major collisions in the contemporary solar system does raise concern about the risk to humanity. 2. In December 2004, astronomers determined that there was a non-negligible probability that near-Earth asteroid Apophis (see Chapter 4 for more details) would strike Earth in 2029. As Apophis is an almost 300-meterdiameter object, a collision anywhere on Earth would have serious regional consequences and possibly produce transient global climate effects. Subsequent observations of Apophis ruled out an impact in 2029 and also determined that it is quite unlikely that this object could strike during its next close approach to Earth in 2036. However, there likely remain many Apophis-sized NEOs that have yet to be detected. The threat from Apophis was discovered only in 2004, raising concerns about whether the threat of such an object could be mitigated should a collision with Earth be determined to have a high probability of occurrence in the relatively near future. 3. In June 1908, a powerful explosion blew down trees over an area spanning at least 2,000 square kilometers of forest near the Podkamennaya Tunguska River in Central Siberia. As no crater associated with this explosion



14


FIGURE 2.2 The long-lasting airburst trail over Sudan after the impact of 2008 TC3 on October 7, 2008. SOURCE: Courtesy of M. Elhassan, M.H. Shaddad, and P. Jenniskens.

was located, scientists initially argued against an asteroid or comet origin. However, subsequent analysis and more recent modeling (see, e.g., Chyba, 1993; Boslough and Crawford, 1997, 2008) have indicated that modest-sized objects (the Tunguska object may have been only 30 to 50 meters in diameter) moving at high supersonic speeds through the atmosphere can disintegrate spontaneously, creating an airburst that causes substantial damage without cratering. Such airbursts are potentially more destructive than are ground impacts of similar-size objects. 4. A stony meteorite 1 to 2 meters in diameter traveling at high supersonic speeds created an impact crater in Peru in September 2007. According to current models with standard assumptions, such a small object should not have impacted the surface at such a high velocity. This case demonstrates that specific instances can vary widely from the norm and is a reminder that small NEOs can also be dangerous. 5. On October 6, 2008, asteroid 2008 TC3 was observed by the Catalina Sky Survey (see Chapter 3) on a collision course with Earth. Although the object was deemed too small to pose much of a threat, the Spaceguard Survey and the Minor Planet Center (see Chapter 3) acted rapidly to coordinate an observation campaign over the following 19 hours, with both professionals and amateurs to observe the object and determine its trajectory. The 2- to 5-meter-diameter object entered the atmosphere on October 7, 2008, and the consequent fireball was observed over northern Sudan (Figure 2.2) (Jenniskens et al., 2009). Subsequent ground searches in the Nubian Desert in Sudan located 3.9 kilograms (in 280 fragments) of material from the meteorite. These recent events, as well as the current understanding of impact processes and the population of small bodies across the solar system but especially in the near-Earth environment, raise significant concerns about the current state of knowledge of potentially hazardous objects and the ability to respond to the threats that they might pose to humanity.

The

Spaceguard Survey was mandated by Congress to detect 90 percent of NEOs 1 kilometer in diameter or greater by 2008.



15

RISK ANALYSIS

INVENTORY OF NEAR-EARTH OBJECTS (NEOS) AND POTENTIALLY HAZARDOUS NEOS Introduction Scientists’ ability to detect NEOs is dependent on how bright each individual object appears in the sky—which depends primarily on its distance from Earth, its size, its albedo (how well light reflects from its surface), and its location relative to the Sun. The observation of NEOs that appear very close to the Sun when viewed from Earth is difficult or even impossible. The brightness of each NEO also changes as it moves through its orbit, coming closer to and going farther away from Earth. As a result, it is very difficult to detect all NEOs, particularly smaller (fainter) asteroids, in the entire population. Figure 2.3 shows the distribution (in January 2010) of known asteroids in the inner solar system. (Note that the asteroids represented in Figure 2.3 are not all in the same orbital plane, and so it is more accurate to envision some of the objects above the page and some below it. The image is also very misleading in the sense that on this scale, the asteroids would be invisible. The vast majority of the solar system is empty space, but there are nonetheless many objects present.) Of course, while many NEOs have been located, there are many yet to be discovered, some of which may represent a significant threat of impact on Earth. Using estimates of the distribution and orbits of these undiscovered NEOs, the committee can statistically address the hazard posed by NEOs, particularly those that are large enough to cause significant damage should they impact Earth. To determine what fraction of the entire NEO population has been detected, it is necessary to compute the total expected number of objects from knowledge of the properties of known NEOs and how objects are expected to get brighter and fainter as they and Earth move around their orbits. Using computer models one can determine the fraction of all NEOs of different sizes that will be detected for a particular survey strategy. As surveys approach completion and the knowledge of the NEO population increases, refinements are possible to the computer simulations that allow greater confidence in the predicted numbers of NEOs in each size range. Current estimates (Harris,

FIGURE 2.3 The distribution of currently known asteroids (in January 2010). The green dots represent asteroids that do not currently approach Earth. The yellow dots are Earth-approaching asteroids, ones having orbits that come close to Earth but that do not cross Earth’s orbit. The red boxes mark the locations of asteroids that cross Earth’s orbit, although they may not necessarily closely approach Earth. Contrary to the impression given by this illustration, the space represented by this figure is predominantly empty. SOURCE: Courtesy of Scott Manley, Armagh Observatory.



16


2009) indicate that there should be a total of about 940 NEOs larger than 1 kilometer in diameter. This includes near-Earth asteroids but does not include long-period comets (orbital periods in excess of 200 years), which are believed to present less than on the order of 1 percent of the total NEO impact threat (Stokes et al., 2003). Based on this estimate and current NEO detections, the committee concluded that nearly 85 percent of all objects 1 kilometer in diameter or larger in the near-Earth environment have been detected. The committee has also shown that none of these objects presents a threat of impact on Earth within the next century. Although impacts of objects smaller than 1 kilometer in diameter do less damage than larger ones, it is this smaller class of objects that, owing to their far greater numbers, presents the most frequent threat to humanity. Estimates of the “risk” posed by the portion of the NEO population that has yet to be discovered require the following components: 1. The orbital distribution of undiscovered asteroids and comets capable of producing damage to human life or property. This information is used to compute the collision probabilities and impact velocities of the possible impactors on Earth. 2. The mass distribution of potential Earth impactors. Given the uncertainties about the properties of comets and asteroids, previous works have concentrated on the distribution of brightness of these objects at a standard distance from both Earth and Sun. This distribution is then converted into an “uncalibrated” size distribution by making assumptions based on the present (incomplete) understanding of the average properties of these objects. Thus the committee can estimate equivalent diameters, D, from measurements of brightness, H, where the term “diameter” used here and in the subsequent text refers to the equivalent diameter of a sphere of the same volume. 3. The amount of “damage” produced by impactors when they strike different locations on Earth. Damage is usually calculated from components of the impact. One component is the impact energy distribution, which is computed from points 1 and 2, above. A second component, the worth of things of value on Earth (e.g., human life, infrastructure, and property), can be set in a manner similar to that used by insurance actuarial assessors. As property damage or loss of life will vary significantly with the geographical point of impact, realistic assessments of “damage” must allow for the stochastic nature of impacts and usually involve the use of Monte Carlo computer simulations. The previous reports by Stokes et al. (2003) and NASA PA&E (2006) reviewed available data on NEOs and made extensive calculations of the potential hazard to humankind from various populations of NEOs. The next sections briefly review the computations in Stokes et al. (2003) and NASA PA&E (2006). Both of these documents were fairly extensive in their descriptions and are still close to state of the art. Thus the committee only updates the calculations based on more recent scientific analysis, points out uncertainties and sensitivities of the results to assumptions, and comments where new work is needed. The Distribution of NEO Orbits The basis for the distribution of NEO orbits in both Stokes et al. (2003) and NASA PA&E (2006) comes from the work of Bottke et al. (2002). The method is fairly detailed, but, in brief, they used dynamical modeling to determine the primary source regions of NEOs (e.g., portions of the main asteroid belt, and the trans-Neptunian region that acts as a source of “Jupiter family” comets) and to create probability distributions of the destinations of the NEOs (e.g., into the Sun, interactions with planets, return to the asteroid belt). The probability distributions were then compared to models of observations of known NEOs detected by surveys (e.g., by Spacewatch and the Lincoln Near-Earth Asteroid Research [LINEAR] program; see Chapter 3). These surveys found that most Some

of the data presented to the Survey/Detection Panel by Harris (2009) will also be published in the upcoming European Space Agency conference proceedings of the April 27-30, 2009, 1st International Academy of Astronautics Planetary Defense Conference: Protecting Earth from Asteroids. Spacewatch was one of the first NEO discovery systems, established in 1981 and run by the University of Arizona. The LINEAR program at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Lincoln Laboratory is funded by the United States Air Force and NASA and was the most successful NEO search program from 1997 until 2004.



17

RISK ANALYSIS

kilometer-sized NEOs come from the inner and central parts of the asteroid belt. Only a small percentage ( 1 km 0.5 km < D < 1 km 0.2 km < D < 0.5 km D < 0.2 km

92 68 32 60

36.5 27.0 12.7 23.8



58


BOX 4.1 Radar Observations of the Near-Earth-Object Apophis The near-Earth asteroid Apophis, which is approximately 300 meters in diameter, was discovered in March 2004, lost, and then rediscovered in December of that year. It quickly became clear that it would make a very close approach to Earth in 2029, and initial estimates of its orbit showed a significant probability of an impact. Further observations ruled out an impact in 2029. Apophis was observed at the Arecibo Observatory in Puerto Rico as a target-of-opportunity in January 2005, August 2005, and May 2006 solely to reduce uncertainties with respect to its orbit. The radar observations reduced the volume of the statistical uncertainty for the approach in 2029 by more than 90 percent, and they also revealed a bias in the analysis of the optical observations obtained in March 2004; the net effect was to shift the predicted 2029 encounter 4.4 Earth radii closer and only 5.6 Earth radii from the surface (Giorgini et al., 2008), a distance comparable to those of many communication satellites. During the radar observations, Apophis was between 0.19 to 0.27 astronomical units (AU) from Earth (1 AU is the average distance of Earth from the Sun) and a weak radar target. It is thus now known that Apophis cannot impact Earth in 2029, but an impact, although extremely unlikely, has not been ruled out for the approach in 2036. The primary sources of uncertainty are the physical properties of the asteroid and how, through interaction with sunlight, they propagate into orbit change. Apophis is an unusual case: These properties matter so much because the uncertainties grow enormously owing to this asteroid’s expected very close approach to Earth in April 2029. Thus, although the radar observations in 2005 to 2006 significantly improved the orbit, paradoxically, because the approach is so deep in Earth’s gravity well, the uncertainties in subsequent years are greatly magnified. Ignoring these sunlight effects leads to a probability of impact in 2036 of about 0.000002, but in practice this probability cannot be computed reliably due to uncertainties imposed by Apophis’s unknown physical properties, as mentioned above. Optical observations will be obtainable in 2011 and may be sufficient to exclude the possibility of a 2036 impact. If not, then radar observations at Arecibo or Goldstone when Apophis approaches Earth within 0.14 AU in 2013 should reduce uncertainties in the knowledge of the orbit substantially, with a high probability of completely ruling out an impact in 2036, and a very small probability of indicating a possible impact.

During those 12 months starting in May 2008, 23 NEOs were observed by radar, so the number that could have been observed was about 18 times larger and substantially more than have been observed by radar in the past 40 years. Thus, Arecibo and Goldstone are grossly underutilized as radar observatories and could make much more substantial contributions than they do currently. Furthermore, when the Panoramic Survey Telescope and Rapid Response System (PanSTARRS) 1 begins regular operations, the number of NEOs discovered and thus detectable by radar should increase dramatically. Finding: The capabilities of the Arecibo and Goldstone Radar Observatories are complementary, and many observing campaigns have made use of their synergy. One of the primary advantages of having two radar facilities is that one can serve as a backup for the other. Finding: The number of NEOs observed by radar per year could be increased about fivefold by obtaining sufficient observing time. Arecibo and Goldstone radar observations of more than 20 NEOs have revealed that surface roughness depends on composition and that very rough surfaces are common. Arecibo and Goldstone radar observations have also revealed that approximately 15 percent of NEOs larger than 200 meters in diameter have satellites orbiting about



59

CHARACTERIZATION

FIGURE 4.4 Signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs) for radar echoes received at the Arecibo Observatory and Goldstone Solar System Figure 4.4 left.eps Figure 4.4 right.eps Radar for several combinations of distances and sizes. “S-class” is a category of stony asteroids. SOURCE: Courtesy of Lance bitmap, fixed image bitmap, fixed image A.M. Benner, NASA, JPL.

TABLE 4.2 Number of Near-Earth Objects in Different Size Intervals That Are Detectable by the Arecibo and Goldstone Radar Observatories Diameter (D)

Number Detectable

D > 1 km 0.14 km < D < 1 km D < 0.14 km Total

46 110 252 408

them (see Figure 4.3). This information is important for planning mitigation (Chapter 5). The first confirmed NEO “triple system” (a central rock has two smaller bodies in orbit around it) was discovered at Arecibo. Arecibo has discovered half of all known NEOs with satellites and observed almost all of these systems. Radar, with Arecibo in the lead, has become the most effective tool available for discovering that NEOs have satellites, and for estimating the mutual orbits, masses, sizes, and thus densities of each component. Arecibo observations of the NEO 1950 DA suggested a small probability of impact with Earth in 2880. These observations demonstrated that the physical properties of an NEO are intimately coupled with long-term orbit prediction through the accelerations resulting from the absorption of sunlight and the asymmetric radiation of heat from the NEO due to its rotation (Giorgini et al., 2002), as well as the direct pressure exerted by sunlight on



60


TABLE 4.3 Numbers of Near-Earth Objects with Known Physical Properties Number Near-Earth objects currently known Rotation periods Rotation pole directions Detected by radar Shapes estimated from radar data Shapes estimated from optical data Shapes estimated from spacecraft data Masses estimated from spacecraft data Masses estimated from radar data Bulk densities estimated from all sources Size estimated from all sources Near-surface densities estimated from radar

6,278 450 25 246 25 14 2 2 4 10 108 17

the NEO. The importance of these effects depends on the NEO mass, thermal properties, size, shape, and rotation. Arecibo and Goldstone radar observations led to the first detection of such effects for asteroid Golevka and provided an estimate of its density and mass; this is one of only a handful of NEOs for which a mass estimate is available (see Table 4.3). Operational Reliability of Arecibo and Goldstone Until recently, Arecibo has proven a more dependable radar facility than Goldstone because of fewer equipment problems interfering with scheduled observations. That situation has recently changed, largely because of aging on-site primary power turbine generators at Arecibo (commercial power for the operation of extremely high power transmitters there is not practical). Because of turbine degradation, Arecibo has been unable to guarantee its full nominal power output of 900 kilowatts for several years; by the fall of 2008 the turbine generator had become progressively less reliable, forcing a reduction of power to approximately 500 to 600 kilowatts, and by the spring of 2009 to only about 60 kilowatts, which caused the cancellation of many NEO radar observations. The government of Puerto Rico has appropriated money for a new, more reliable generating source using diesel engines, but installation of this system is not expected to start until 2010. Goldstone has also experienced significant equipment problems, most notably with its transmitter, which reduced operations to half power for several months in late 2008, but has recently resumed operating at its nominal power of 430 kilowatts. Keeping the approximately 45-year-old DSS-14 antenna operating is an increasingly important issue; Goldstone is scheduled to go “off-line” for 7 months of maintenance starting during 2010. Arecibo and Goldstone Radar Operating Costs The Arecibo and Goldstone radar systems are currently operational (with the caveats on transmittal power noted above), but neither is funded for dedicated observations of NEOs. The annual cost for Arecibo to carry out up to 300 hours of radar observations plus adequate maintenance is estimated at $2 million (approximately $1 million for the cost of purely radar operation [fuel, salaries, and so on] and $1 million for radar’s pro rata share of maintaining the antenna and facility). In 2008 Arecibo devoted about 240 hours to NEO observations. If the radar observations at Arecibo increased, say, to about 500 hours, then the associated operational cost would rise to about $3 million. Arecibo could carry out radar observations at a significantly higher rate than it does currently if additional time and funding were available. At Goldstone the situation is different, because Goldstone’s primary mission is spacecraft communication, although if the Deep Space Network decommissions the DSS-14 antenna, considerably



61

CHARACTERIZATION

more time could be obtained by converting Goldstone to a dedicated radar facility, but at a greatly increased cost since the whole facility would then be charged to the radar budget. The 2004 Goldstone NEO budget request was $2.4 million, which would have supported a robust observing program. Only $2 million was appropriated, and since then the budget has dropped to about $1 million annually. Since 2002, Goldstone has devoted an annual average of about 200 hours to observing NEOs, which constitutes 2.3 percent of all time available on this telescope. During this interval, the number of hours scheduled for NEO radar observations declined by about 50 percent, and the fraction of scheduled time that was used for data acquisition declined from about 78 to 63 percent due to increasing difficulty with maintaining different components of the system. Recent Funding History of the Arecibo Radar In the 1990s the NSF and NASA funded a $25 million project that increased Arecibo’s sensitivity by approximately 20-fold. NASA contributed $11 million to provide new equipment that doubled the transmitter power to 900 kilowatts. This funding followed a history of NASA support for radar observations at Arecibo dating back to the 1970s and was particularly aimed at improving radar observations of near-Earth asteroids. Following the completion of this project in the late 1990s, NASA provided about $600,000 annually for a few years to support fuel costs, salaries, and the maintenance of the Arecibo radar. Late in 2001 NASA sent a letter to the NAIC which indicated that funding for the radar would be eliminated in calendar year 2002. This deadline was subsequently relaxed, and the NAIC was instead asked to submit a proposal to NASA for continued funding. In consultation with NSF, NASA began reducing Arecibo’s funding in fiscal year (FY) 2003 and eliminated it at the end of FY 2005. NAIC has continued to operate the radar using existing funds but at the expense of adequate maintenance of the radar system. In late 2006, the National Science Foundation convened a senior review that issued a report on observatories funded by NSF. No solar system scientists served on the panel, which recommended annual reductions in funding at Arecibo to a level that would merely permit the completion of several (non-radar) astrophysical surveys that still had a few years to run. That panel recommended that unless funding outside the NSF could be secured, the observatory be closed and decommissioned. According to a March 2009 report by the Congressional Research Service, costs for decommissioning the facility have ranged from $170 million to $200 million (Matthews, 2009), more than the cost of a decade’s total operations of the facility. Because of budgetary commitments for essential maintenance, NAIC was forced to cut Arecibo’s operating budget by 24 percent almost immediately following the senior review, but continued to operate the radar within its reduced budget. However, due to continuing budget cuts, NAIC stated that it would soon be necessary to cease operations of the radar altogether in order to provide sufficient funds for the observatory to complete the recommended astrophysical surveys. Currently NAIC is committing to operating the radar only through FY 2010. Finding: Radar cannot be used to discover NEOs, but it is a powerful tool for rapidly improving the knowledge of the orbit of a newly found object and thus characterizing its potential hazard to Earth. Finding: The Arecibo and Goldstone radar systems play a unique role in the characterization of NEOs, providing unmatched accuracy in orbit determination and offering insight into size, shape, surface structure, and other properties for objects within their latitude coverage and detection range. Finding: Congress has directed NASA to ensure that Arecibo is available for radar observations but has not appropriated funds for this work. Recommendation: Immediate action is required to ensure the continued operation of the Arecibo Observatory at a level sufficient to maintain and staff the radar facility. Additionally, NASA and the National Science Foundation should support a vigorous program of radar observations of NEOs at Arecibo, and NASA should support such a program at Goldstone for orbit determination and the characterization of physical properties.



62


CHARACTERIZATION ISSUES FOR AIRBURSTS Airbursts created by the entry into Earth’s atmosphere of NEOs with diameters up to a few hundred meters both pose a serious threat at the larger end of the size range of the NEO and offer a unique opportunity to deduce physical characteristics at the small end of the range. Observations of small airbursts have provided almost the only information existing on the bulk strength, density, and composition of small NEOs through their high-speed interaction with Earth’s atmosphere. Although kilometer-sized NEOs are not substantially affected by their atmospheric passage, knowledge of their density and probable strength is important for mitigation efforts, making the study of airburst phenomena a prime focus for characterization efforts. The density of an NEO that enters Earth’s atmosphere is most often the main determinant of where its energy is released. Dense and physically strong bodies (e.g., solid bodies) will be more likely to penetrate the atmosphere intact and impact the surface of Earth. Although much of the energy from such impact events goes into crater formation and excavation, producing melt, ejecta, and seismic shaking and/or tsunamis in ocean events, a substantial fraction of its energy (perhaps as much as two-thirds for the event that produced Meteor Crater, Arizona; see Figure 2.1 in Chapter 2) is nevertheless deposited in the atmosphere. Objects up to a few hundred meters in diameter with low density or physically weak bodies (e.g., highly porous and strengthless rubble piles) are likely to be disrupted during atmospheric entry; all of the energy from such events will be deposited directly into the atmosphere, producing shock waves in the air and heat radiation that may cause more widespread damage on the ground than had the atmosphere been absent. The most notable recorded airburst event occurred in a remote region of Tunguska, Siberia, in 1908 and knocked down or defoliated the trees over an area of more than 2,000 square kilometers. There is a range of estimates for the size of the object that caused this event. Several estimates place the object as approximately 100 meters in diameter. A recent study, as yet not reproduced, suggests that the event was caused by a small (approximately 30- to 50-meter-diameter) NEO exploding at relatively low altitude, about 10 kilometers up (Boslough and Crawford, 2008). Since smaller NEOs are thought to be far more numerous than larger ones, there is a reasonable expectation that the next markedly destructive Earth impact event will be an object in the size range of 30 to 50 meters in diameter. Ground-based studies of NEOs using data on both rotation rates and satellites suggest that most NEOs larger than about 150 meters in diameter are rubble piles, while most smaller ones are monolithic, with enough long-term tensile strength to prevent them from flying apart. The larger objects that are weak rubble piles easily disintegrate during atmospheric entry and create airbursts that somewhat resemble high-altitude nuclear explosions. Smaller monoliths may still be dispersed by aerodynamic forces as these monoliths penetrate deeper into the atmosphere, and they may, or may not produce craters depending on the strength, density, and size of each monolith. Recent data obtained by spacecraft sensors also indicate that many NEOs may be either composed of gravitationally bound rubble piles or physically weak materials. The investigation by Japan’s Hayabusa spacecraft of the NEO Itokawa suggests that this asteroid is a prime example of a rubble-pile object with significant porosity. The Hayabusa data show that Itokawa is very porous, having roughly the same porosity as sand, and would probably produce a very significant airburst if it impacted Earth. Information from the U.S. Department of Defense’s (DOD’s) Earth-observing satellites has shown that highaltitude airbursts from relatively small (1- to 5-meter-diameter) objects occur on a regular basis. This key information shows, for the NEOs encountering Earth, how the number of these objects depends on their size. To date, none of these airbursts has produced appreciable damage. However, two well-observed airbursts have resulted in meteoritic material being recovered from the ground. The recent impacts of the Tagish Lake meteorite parent body over Canada (January 2000) and of asteroid 2008 TC3 over Sudan (October 2008) lend evidence to support the suggestion that airbursts are relatively common. In addition, these events lend some insights into the material composition of these NEOs. The meteorites recovered from these two airbursts are composed of carbon-rich materials, which suggest that their parent bodies were objects composed of physically weak materials compared to those of other meteorite types (e.g., iron-rich materials). This information, along with the substantial fraction of NEOs with satellites, suggests that many subkilometer-sized NEOs are rubble piles or composed of physically weak materials. Therefore, any such NEO found to have an Earth-impacting trajectory would likely deliver its impact energy in the form of an airburst.



63

CHARACTERIZATION

Airbursts are also detected by the arrays of microbarographic sensors deployed by the DOD and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) Organization. This international network, called the International Monitoring System, consists of seismic, infrasound, radionuclide, and hydroacoustic stations. The data are not publicly available; the scientific community would benefit from unfiltered access to the data produced by these arrays. One of the least understood aspects of the airburst phenomenon is whether and how these events play a role in the formation of tsunamis. There has been significant debate on the effects of ocean impacts, both by direct impact into and by airbursts above the water. Some investigators suspect that an airburst over an ocean may be much more devastating than a similar-sized impact event directly into the water. The modeling of direct oceanic impacts suggests that the impact splash is significant and will be detrimental to those nearby, but that the wavelength of the resultant waves generated is not of sufficient length to cause a tsunami. Other studies suggest on the contrary that even this type of impact may be enough to generate a tsunami-like phenomenon depending on the terrain that such impact-generated waves may encounter. Still others have found that, based on numerical simulations and on data from nuclear oceanic tests, tsunamis are not generated by impact events. More recent work on airburst events over the ocean suggests that this too is an area of uncertainty. Previous investigations have treated these types of airbursts in a fashion similar to nuclear explosions that deliver their energy from a single point. If this treatment were correct, then the resultant blast waves would not produce a tsunami-type of event. However, a recent study suggests that NEOs entering the upper atmosphere and exploding there act more like a linear series of nearly simultaneous explosions (Boslough and Crawford, 2008). These blast effects are not as localized as those from the single source models, in which the momentum of the object is carried downward into the atmosphere and produces a shock wave. If the shock wave were sufficiently strong to depress a wide area of the ocean’s surface, the resultant rebound effect of the ocean would create a classic tsunami. Hence the threat from small NEO airbursts over the ocean might present their most significant hazard to humanity given that most of the world’s population is concentrated on or near oceanic coastlines. Finding: U.S. Department of Defense satellites have detected and continue to detect high-altitude airburst events from NEOs entering Earth’s atmosphere. Such data are valuable to the NEO community for assessing NEO hazards. Recommendation: Data from NEO airburst events observed by the U.S. Department of Defense satellites should be made available to the scientific community to allow it to improve understanding of the NEO hazards to Earth. Finding: Preliminary theoretical studies on low-altitude atmospheric Tunguska-like airbursts from asteroids as small as 30 meters in diameter suggest that significant risk exists from these NEOs. Finding: Current models for the generation of tsunamis by impacts into or airbursts above the ocean are not yet sufficiently reliable to establish threat levels to coastal communities. Recommendation: Additional observations and modeling should be performed to establish the risk associated with airbursts and with potential tsunami generation. IN SITU CHARACTERIZATION RELEVANT FOR MITIGATION Detailed knowledge of the physical characteristics of several representative NEOs would improve understanding of the overall NEO population and help the design and implementation of the mitigation techniques that may be employed should an NEO threaten Earth (but that understanding may well not improve the knowledge of a specific object on an impact trajectory). Although the physical characteristics of an individual NEO that might strike Earth cannot be accurately predicted in advance, the knowledge of the range of possible characteristics will greatly aid in advance planning and might be essential if there is no opportunity to perform detailed characterization studies of the incoming NEO. Dedicated space missions such as Near Earth Asteroid Rendezvous (NEAR)



64


Shoemaker and Hayabusa have provided detailed information on two vastly dissimilar NEOs. NASA’s NEAR Shoemaker spacecraft visited one of the largest NEOs, Eros, in February 2000; the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency’s Hayabusa probe rendezvoused with the subkilometer-sized asteroid Itokawa in September 2005. Both of these robotic missions generated much scientific interest in NEOs and revealed many intriguing surprises and new paradigms for asteroid scientists to consider. It is now apparent from just these two missions, and the suite of ground-based optical and radar observations of NEOs, that NEOs have a much wider range of internal structures, more diverse physical conditions, and more complex surfaces than had previously been realized. Essential physical properties relevant for the mitigation of NEOs are best determined from dedicated spacecraft missions. Although ground-based observations can provide significant information about the physical properties of NEOs (e.g., rotation rates, size estimates, and composition), dedicated spacecraft missions to NEOs providing extended periods for observations and investigation close to NEOs obtain detailed characterizations of their rotational motions, masses, sizes, shapes, surface morphology, internal structure, mineral composition, and collisional history. The data collected from NEO characterization missions would also help to calibrate the ground- and space-based remote sensing data and may permit increased confidence in the remote classification of NEOs and their associated physical characteristics, which could inform future mitigation decisions. Flyby missions are not well suited for these detailed types of investigations because of the limited time for performing observations during the spacecraft encounter. To attain the required details of an NEO’s physical characteristics for hazard mitigation, much more time must be spent near the NEO than is possible in a flyby in order to operate instruments making gamma-ray, x-ray, and other compositional measurements. Constraints on some surface characteristics and on the object’s mass can be obtained, but the uncertainties on the NEO’s physical properties obtained from a flyby encounter are far too large to be useful for hazard mitigation purposes. Such missions may be suitable for basic reconnaissance of the NEO population, but overall the data return relevant to mitigation is low relative to cost. Continued efforts to obtain characterization data from ground-based studies are desirable, and spacecraft observations of representative NEOs are very important. Spacecraft characterization of any NEO for which orbit change is to be attempted is essential (see Chapter 5). Finding: Dedicated flyby spacecraft missions to NEOs provide only limited information relevant for hazard mitigation issues. Finding: Rendezvous spacecraft missions can provide detailed characterization of NEOs that could aid in the design and development of hazard mitigation techniques. Such in situ characterization also allows the calibration of ground- and space-based remote sensing data and may permit increased confidence in the use of the remote classification of NEOs to inform future mitigation decisions. HUMAN MISSIONS TO NEAR-EARTH OBJECTS During its deliberations, the committee was briefed on the possibilities of human missions to near-Earth objects. This subject also received attention during meetings of the Human Space Flight Review Committee and was mentioned as part of its “Flexible Path” option in its final report. In the future, NASA’s Exploration Systems Mission Directorate may conduct human missions to one or more near-Earth objects. The committee identified no cost-effective role for human spaceflight in addressing the hazards posed by NEOs. However, if human missions to NEOs are conducted in the future, the committee recommends that their scientific aspects be maximized to provide data useful for their characterization. Recommendation: If NASA conducts human missions to NEOs, these missions should maximize the data obtained for NEO characterization.



65

CHARACTERIZATION

REFERENCES Benner, L.A.M., S.J. Ostro, M.C. Nolan, J. Margot, J.D. Giorgini, R.S. Hudson, R.F. Jurgens, M.A. Slade, E.S. Howell, D.B. Campbell, and D.K. Yeomans. 2002. Radar observations of asteroid 1999 JM8. Meteoritics and Planetary Science 37(6):779-792. Binzel, R.P., D. Lupishko, M. Di Martino, R.J. Whiteley, and G.J. Hahn. 2002. Physical properties of near-Earth objects. Pp. 255-271 in Asteroids III (W.F. Bottke, P. Paolicchi, R.P. Binzel, and A. Cellino, eds.). University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Boslough, M., and D. Crawford. 2008. Low-altitude airbursts and the impact threat. International Journal of Impact Engineering 35:1441-1448. Giorgini, J.D., S.J. Ostro, L.A.M. Benner, P.W. Chodas, S.R. Chesley, R.S. Hudson, M.C. Nolan, A.R. Klemola, E.M. Standish, R.F. Jurgens, R. Rose, A.B. Chamberlin, D.K. Yeomans, and J. Margot. 2002. Asteroid 1950 DA’s encounter with Earth in 2880: Physical limits of collision probability prediction. Science �� 296:132-136. Giorgini, J.D., L.A.M. Benner, S.J. Ostro, M.C. Nolan, and M.W. Busch. 2008. �� Predicting the Earth encounters of (99942) Apophis. Icarus 193(1):1-19. Matthews, C.M. 2009. The Arecibo Ionospheric Observatory. R40437. Congressional Research Service, Washington, D.C.. Ostro, S.J., and J.D. Giorgini. 2004. �� The role of radar in predicting and preventing asteroid and comet collisions with Earth. Pp. 38-65 in Mitigation of Hazardous Comets and Asteroids (M.J.S. Belton, T.H. Morgan, N.H. Samarasinha, and D.K. Yeomans, eds.). Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge, Cambridge, Mass. Ostro, S.J., J.D. Giorgini, and L.A.M. Benner. 2006. Radar reconnaissance of near-Earth asteroids, Pp. 143-150 in Near Earth Objects, Our Celestial Neighbors: Opportunity and Risk (A. Milani, G.B. Valsecchi, and D. Vokrouhlicky, eds.), Proceedings of the 236th Symposium of the International Astronomical Union, Prague, Czech Republic, August 14-18, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K.



5 Mitigation

Impacts on Earth by near-Earth objects (NEOs) are inevitable. The impactors range from harmless fireballs, which are very frequent; through the largest airbursts, which do not cause significant destruction on the ground, on average occurring once in a human lifetime; to globally catastrophic events, which are very unlikely to occur in any given human lifetime but are probably randomly distributed in time. The risks from these NEOs, or more specifically scientists’ assessment of the risks in the next century, will be changing as surveys are carried out. Given the inevitability of impacts, and noting that the entire point of surveys is to enable appropriate action to be taken, how can the effects of potential impacting NEOs be mitigated? The amount of destruction from an event scales with the energy being brought by the impacting object. Because the range of possible destruction is so huge, no single approach is adequate for dealing with all events. For events of sufficiently low energy, the methods of civil defense in the broadest sense are the most cost-effective for saving human lives and minimizing property damage. For larger events, changing the path of the hazardous object is the appropriate solution, although the method for changing the path varies depending on the amount of advance notice available and the mass of the hazardous object. For the largest events, from beyond global catastrophe to events that cause mass extinctions, there is no current technology capable of sufficiently changing the orbital path to avoid disaster. In this chapter the committee considers four categories of mitigation: • Civil defenseinvolving such efforts as evacuating the region around a small impact, • Slow-push or -pull methodsgradually changing the orbit of an NEO so that it misses Earth, • Kinetic impactdelivering a large amount of momentum (and energy) instantaneously to an NEO to change its orbit so that it misses Earth, and • Nuclear detonationdelivering a much larger amount of momentum (and energy) instantaneously to an NEO to change its orbit so that it misses Earth. For impacting NEOs that are sufficiently small (tens of meters to perhaps 100 meters in diameter) and not very strong (typically not iron meteoroids), the destruction on Earth will be caused by an airburst and its associated blast wave and thermal pulse, as was the case of the Tunguska event above Siberia in 1908. Events like this cause destruction over areas up to thousands of square kilometers, and evacuation and sheltering are not only plausible but often the most cost-effective approach for saving human lives. Airburst events will also be the most frequent, 66



67

MITIGATION

occurring on average every couple of centuries. They are also the events that are likely to have the least advance warning. For larger events, actively changing the orbit of the hazardous object is likely desirable. The choice among the three methodsthe slow-push and -pull method, kinetic impact, and nuclear detonationdepends both on the mass of the NEO that has to be moved and on how early the NEO is determined to be hazardous, as well as on the details of the orbit. The mitigation options are laid out in Table 5.1, which lists the applicability of each option to a given threat. Table 5.2 shows the regimes in which each mitigation method is applicable. Note that Table 5.2 brings in an additional important aspect of the problem, international coordination, which is discussed in more detail in Chapter 7 of this report. Although all of the primary mitigation strategy methods are conceptually valid, none is now ready to implement on short notice. Civil defense and kinetic impactors are probably the closest to deployable but even these require additional study before they can be relied on. In all cases, the decision to initiate mitigation is a sociopolitical decision, not a technical decision. This decision is implicit in earlier sociopolitical decisions about which methods of mitigation to develop, and it also depends on the level of probability that is considered to require mitigation. The committee’s recommendations regarding the minimum approach to mitigation and more aggressive approaches are discussed later. The subject of mitigation is rife with uncertainty. The effect on Earth of a given NEO depends critically on the velocity at which the NEO impacts Earth, a factor that is traditionally ignored in studies of the hazard. The decisions on mitigation must be based on the mass of the NEO rather than on its diameter, because mass is the quantity that most affects the effectiveness of any mitigation and the diameter for a given mass can vary by roughly a factor of two. The variation in diameter implies a factor-of-two variation, depending on the NEO’s density, of the size of an NEO that can be moved far enough to miss Earth. Clearly an earlier warning allows a smaller action to be sufficient, but quantifying this relation is very uncertain. The effectiveness of most but not all methods also depends critically on the physical properties of the NEO. Humanity’s ability to mitigate depends on the details of the intercepting trajectory. There are also significant differences depending on whether the discussion of mitigation is limited to current technology or includes likely future technology such as the next generation of heavy-lift launch vehicles. Thus the committee’s discussion of the range of applicability will show overlapping and uncertain ranges. Realistic mitigation is likely to include more than one technique, if for no other reason than to provide confidence. In any case of mitigation, civil defense will undoubtedly be a component, whether as the primary response or as the ultimate backup. Finding: No single approach to mitigation is appropriate and adequate for completely preventing the effects of the full range of potential impactors, although civil defense is an appropriate component of mitigation in all cases. With adequate warning, a suite of four types of mitigation is adequate to mitigate the threat from nearly all NEOs except the most energetic ones.

TABLE 5.1 Summary of Primary Strategies for Mitigating the Effects of Potential Impacting Near-Earth Objects Strategy

Range of Primary Applicability

Civil defense (e.g., warning, shelter, and evacuation)

Smallest and largest threats. Threat of any size with very short warning time.

Slow push (e.g., “gravity tractor” with a rendezvous spacecraft)

A fraction (1 kilometer in diameter) object with a warning time of several decades. With decades of warning for such large objects, the preferred approach uses a standoff detonation. Neutron output has certain advantages (Dearborn, 2004), as the energy coupling is relatively insensitive to the surface composition and density of the NEO. The simulations show that speed changes (ΔV ) on the order of 2 cm/s are achievable with



Mass Ejected (%)

Speed Change

Ejected Mass

Speed Change (cm/s)

79

MITIGATION

Energy Deposited (kt)

FIGURE 5.2 The speed change (blue) and ejected mass (red) for a 1-kilometer-diameter near-Earth object (NEO) versus energy deposited on the body, measured in kilotons of equivalent TNT.

gravitational binding mostly maintaining the NEO as a single body. About 2 percent of the body mass is ejected, evolving to such a low density that it would likely pose no threat to Earth. Very low yield surface explosives also showed great promise for speed changes on the order of 1 cm/s. As the NEO size decreases and the required yield of the nuclear explosive drops below the tested regime, which extends down to about 0.1 kilotons, the kinetic impact approach will have to be used. Although the nuclear option provides considerable mitigation potential, for NEOs above some size the tested limits of nuclear explosives will become inadequate. Devices in the nuclear stockpile have equivalent energy releases of megatons of TNT, but NEOs larger in diameter than about 10 kilometers are likely to require larger explosive energies, a regime for which devices have not been tested or simulated. Modeling the shock dissipation of highly porous materials appears to be the primary uncertainty for both impactors and standoff bursts. This uncertainty holds particularly true for NEOs with very low density aggregates that can exist only in low-gravity environments. At present, the simulations have not examined the effects of the range of structures, shapes, and rotational states, but with Defense Threat Reduction Agency support to extend the present studies, these simulations could be done. Currently the United States and several other nations maintain nuclear stockpiles and the infrastructure to build them for purposes of national defense. Efforts to reduce those stockpiles continue, but it seems likely that they will exist for some decades. When defense concerns no longer apply, the governments involved may either accept the longer response time for a Manhattan Project-like effort or decide whether adequate safeguards can be developed so that some entity could maintain a small number of nuclear explosive packages to allow humanity to counter an NEO that could, for example, cause mass extinctions. Finding: Other than a large flotilla (100 or more) of massive spacecraft being sent as impactors, nuclear explosions are the only current, practical means for changing the orbit of large NEOs (diameter greater than about 1 kilometer). Nuclear explosions also remain as a backup strategy for somewhat smaller objects if other methods have failed. They may be the only method for dealing with smaller objects when warning time is short, but additional research is necessary for such cases.



80


DELIVERING PAYLOADS TO NEAR-EARTH OBJECTS A key element of any comprehensive mitigation strategy is the ability to deliver a payload to a hazardous NEO, either by means of a rendezvous (e.g., for characterization, for attaching an accurate tracking device, or for applying a slow-push-pull technique to the NEO) or a high-speed approach (e.g., to deliver a kinetic impactor or to deliver a nuclear explosive package to change the orbit). Once an NEO has been identified as hazardous and the time to impact has been determined, the question becomes: Is it technologically possible to act and succeed in preventing an impact on Earth within the time available? The committee notes that the time to design, build, and launch a mission is typically a large fraction (more than half) of a decade, but this time could be shortened with a necessarily expensive “crash program.” The part that is harder to control is the time from launch to arrival at the NEO, which depends on the NEO’s orbit. A second key element, equally important for mitigation either by a gravity tractor or by a kinetic impactor, is the amount of mass that can be delivered to the NEO. This section addresses the issues of mass deliverable to an NEO and the time to reach the NEO after launch. The discussion of developing crash programs is left to the arena of public policy. NEOs as a group have a very wide range of orbital properties, from nearly circular orbits with orbital periods of about a year, to very elongated orbits with periods from less than a year to decades if the discussion ignores the long-period comets, and to much longer periods if they are included. A complete statistical description of the time to reach an NEO with an orbit anywhere within this distribution is beyond the scope of this study, so only a very small number of examples is considered here. The statistical distribution of the orbits of the NEOs has been studied by Chesley and Spahr (2004), while Perozzi et al. (2002) have considered trajectories to NEOs as well as the deliverable mass. Any optimization of the trajectory to a given NEO would depend on the goal, as well as on the details of the individual orbit. Prior statistical studies will provide a start on this problem, but a detailed study of possible trajectories to any specific NEO will be needed. The warning timethe length of time from the decision to prevent an impact until the predicted time of impactis a key parameter. For short warning times, of say a decade, high-speed intercepts may be the only possible choice. For longer warning times, of many decades, one could choose between a high-speed intercept and a rendezvous, depending on the size and physical nature of the NEO. The key parameters of a launch are the mass that can be launched to escape Earth’s gravity and then the additional velocity that must be provided to put the spacecraft on a trajectory to the NEO of interest. The former is determined entirely by the available launch vehicles, whereas the latter is determined by the details of the orbit of the NEO. (Note, too, that the mass of the fuel required to provide the Earth-escape velocity and this additional velocity will come at the expense of payload mass.) The additional velocity that must be provided is usually characterized by a parameter called C3, which is a measure of this extra propulsion energy needed to change the spacecraft’s trajectory. This quantity can range from almost zero to very many tens of kilometers per second squared for realistic missions. Values of hundreds of kilometers per second squared may be required for some trajectories, but for traditional scientific missions these are not considered feasible. The use of in-space propulsion, such as the engines commonly called solar-electric propulsion or nuclear-electric propulsion, can significantly reduce the mass of fuel that the spacecraft needs at launch but with a cost in time for using in-space propulsion. Table 5.4 lists the maximum payload in tons that can be carried by various launch vehicles currently available, as well as an estimate of the corresponding capability of the Ares V launcher, which is being developed and might be available for use in the near future. The capability of these launch vehicles is well above the capability assumed nearly a decade ago by Perozzi et al. (2002). The table includes in the first two rows data taken from published literature that provide a starting point, but which in themselves are not directly relevant. The values in the table are for the maximum payloads that can be delivered to a low-Earth orbit (LEO, such as the orbit of the International Space Station) and to a higher orbit that is commonly used as an intermediate step before going to interplanetary space, the geostationary transfer orbit (GTO). The third row lists the mass that can be launched to escape Earth’s gravity, and in the last row shows the mass that can be launched to a relatively easy-to-achieve but realistic orbit that intercepts an NEO. The differences in Table 5.4 between the corresponding entries in the last two rowsa factor of twoshow that even for the NEOs in orbits easiest to reach, the penalty on payload mass is severe. For orbits harder to reach,



81

MITIGATION

TABLE 5.4 Payload Capability (in tons) of Current and Planned Launch Vehicles LEO GTO Escape C3 = 10 (km/s)2

Ariane V

Atlas V

Delta IV

Proton

Zenith

Long March 5

Ares V

20 11 9 5

30 14 12 6

26 11 9 5

~22 ~6 5 3

~14 ~5 4 2

~25 ~14 12 6

~190 ~70 70 35

NOTE: LEO, low-Earth orbit; GTO, geostationary transfer orbit; C3, see Appendix E in this report.

the payload mass drops quickly to zero because of the mass needed for chemical propulsion. An alternative is to use so-called electric propulsion systems, which can be used in principle at any stage beyond LEO but in practice have been used primarily beyond escape from Earth. They substantially reduce the need for fuel and thus increase the payload that can be delivered. However, the available electric power, whether generated from solar or nuclear sources, is not large with current technology, so the electric propulsion systems take a long time to move the spacecraft to any desired velocity and thus significantly increase the time to reach an NEO. New technology that is under discussion and development may improve the situation, but there will always be a trade-off between transit time and launch mass. In practice electric propulsion has been used primarily for rendezvous missions, for which it can provide both initial acceleration and subsequent deceleration to the rendezvous. The committee presents some sample trajectories to illustrate what is possible with today’s launch vehiclesthat is, not including Ares V. Two different trajectories to reach each of two NEO orbits are considered. The first NEO orbit is like that of Apophis, but, for convenience, with the NEO starting from a different position in the orbit than Apophis is at now. The second NEO orbit (“NEO #2”) was chosen to be more elongated than the first. The two different trajectories for each orbit were chosen to approximately maximize the time between the encounter of the spacecraft with the NEO and the predicted impact of the NEO on Earth, for the two cases, one each of high- and low-speed arrival at the NEO. The high-speed arrival corresponds, for example, to maximizing the relative speed of the NEO and spacecraft at encounters for kinetic impact, and the low-speed arrival corresponds to minimizing this relative speed to allow rendezvous for the delivery of a subsurface nuclear device. (Formal optimization calculations were, however, not carried out.) The trajectories shown in Figure 5.3 and Table 5.5 imply launches about a decade before the predicted impact. The decision to act would of course need to be made much earlier in order to design, build, and launch the spacecraft. Note the far smaller mass that can be delivered for a rendezvous mission. These trajectories, which are all feasible to achieve with current technology, assume launch on an Atlas V rocket with a single upper stage to place the spacecraft on the intercept trajectory. Clearly, much larger masses (“payloads”) can be delivered to a high-speed intercept than to a rendezvous, and the difficulty of getting to a target depends in detail not only on the shape of the NEO’s orbit but also on where the NEO is in its orbit at a specific time. The rendezvous trajectories require an additional propulsion system for rapid deceleration as the spacecraft nears the NEO. The intercept trajectories all make an angle of less than 30° to the orbit at interception, so that an impactor would deliver a large fraction of its momentum in the favorable direction, parallel to or exactly opposite to the NEO’s motion. The trajectories for rendezvous become very different if one uses in-space propulsion, allowing near-zero rendezvous speeds and allowing massive payloads but at the expense of much longer flight times than in the cases shown here. New in-space propulsion systems that have been considered and/or are under development can considerably improve the situation by shortening the flight time. Longer warning times offer several other possibilities, including gravity assists from planets. The most challenging trajectories are those to long-period comets, largely because of the likely short time from discovery to their impact on Earth coupled with their very elongated orbits. In general, these comets would require a spacecraft that is ready to launch when the decision is made to act. Cometary impacts on Earth can occur either when the comet is inbound or when it is outbound. Figure 5.4 and Table 5.6 present intercept trajectories that assume launch on a Delta IV-heavy rocket with a single upper stage and a 0.5-ton payload. This payload is sufficient for a nuclear package but rather small for a kinetic impactor. The trajectories were designed to maximize the time between intercept and predicted NEO impact on Earth.



82


FIGURE 5.3 Sample trajectories of a spacecraft are shown in red. The Sun is at the center of each diagram, and the distance from the Sun increases to 1.5 AU at the edge of the upper panels andfrom to 2 AU at the edge of the lower panels. Earth’s orbit is shown in Figure 5.3 Word.eps blue, with the launch point shown by a small circle. The near-Earth object’s (NEO’s) orbit in each case is shown in black, with a bitmap, fixed image small asterisk at the point of intercept. Each panel corresponds to the indicated column in Table 5.5: Panel 1, Apophis-Like HighSpeed; Panel 2, Apophis-Like Rendezvous; Panel 3, NEO #2, High-Speed; Panel 4, NEO #2, Rendezvous.

These trajectories to a comet are examples of a relatively easy case, as they assume that the comet’s orbit is in the same plane as Earth’s orbit. Other orbits are harder to reach. However, the key point is that intercept trajectories with reasonable flight times are feasible. A next-generation launch vehicle, such as Ares V, would make kinetic impacts feasible for some long-period comets. In summary, current technology allows the delivery of payloads for purposes of mitigation to NEOs in a wide range of orbits. However, in cases of short warning (under, say, a decade), payloads are likely to be severely limited in mass but may often be sufficient to deliver a nuclear device. The development of the next generation of heavy-



83

MITIGATION

TABLE 5.5 Values of Key Parameters for Sample Trajectories Using Chemical Propulsion

Launch to Earth impact (years) Launch to NEO (days) Intercept velocity (km/s) C3 (km/s)2 Payload mass (tons)

Apophis-Like High-Speed

Apophis-Like Rendezvous

NEO #2 High-Speed

NEO #2 Rendezvous

14 360 12 15 6.5

9.5 320 3.2 70a 0.6

12 220 12 17 5.9

7.5 270 3.0 19 4.0

NOTE: C3, see Appendix E in this report. aThe large difference in this entry and the others for C3 illustrates the great sensitivity of C3 requirements to spacecraft launch dates.

Earth

FIGURE 5.4 Intercept trajectories for a hazardous, long-period comet. The left panel shows the comet’s orbit and the two places at which it intercepts Earth’s orbit. The next two panels show the intercept trajectories corresponding to the two rows in Table 5.6. In other respects, the panels are similar to those in Figure 5.3.

Figure 5.4 from Word.eps bitmap, fixed image

TABLE 5.6 Parameter Values for Delivering a 500-Kilogram Payload to a Long-Period Comet

Pre-perihelion impact Post-perihelion impact

Intercept Speeda (km/s)

Launch to Impactb (days)

Flight Timec (days)

Intercept to Impact Timed (days)

37 15

130 200

95 160

34 40

aRelative

speed of spacecraft and comet at impact. from spacecraft launch to predicted Earth impact of comet. cTime from spacecraft launch to its intercept of comet. dArrival time of spacecraft at comet prior to predicted impact of Earth by comet. bTime

lift launch vehicles will considerably improve the situation. The development of advanced engines for in-space propulsion will considerably improve the capability of delivering rendezvous payloads (for characterization, to act as gravity tractors, or to emplace surface explosives) when the warning time is in decades. Finding: For a wide range of impact scenarios, launch capability exists to deliver an appropriate payload to mitigate the effects of a NEO impact. For some scenarios, particularly short-warning scenarios, the capability is inadequate. The development of foreseen heavy-lift launch vehicles, such as the Ares cargo vehicle,



84


should enable the use of a variety of methods for NEOs up to two times larger than is possible with current launch vehicles. DISRUPTION Both the kinetic impact and the nuclear detonation mitigation methods are capable of including larger changes in the velocity of the NEO than those discussed above, particularly for smaller objects; in those cases, however, these methods deliver so much energy that there is a likelihood of totally disrupting the NEO (i.e., fragmenting it). Disruption has been widely proposed as a mitigation option, but disruption could make the situation worse. Specifically, if the hazardous object breaks into a small number of large fragments with only a very small spread in velocity, the multiple impacts on Earth might cause far more damage than a single, larger impact. Thus, disruption or fragmentation is a sensible strategy only if it can be shown that the hazard is truly diminished. In the case of a very large impactor (e.g., a 10-kilometer-diameter, civilization-destroying NEO) discovered without many years of warning, adequate orbital change may not be possible, leaving disruption as the only option for mitigation. This option would likely require a system on standby at all times and a decision to disrupt made long before the probability of impact was high. Even in this situation one would want assurance, from previous studies, that disruption would both succeed and reduce the hazard. Numerous studies of the catastrophic disruption of asteroids, undertaken in order to increase the understanding of the evolution of the asteroid belt, have shown that the energy required for catastrophic disruption per unit of mass of an asteroid has a minimum for bodies with diameters of a few hundred meters (e.g., Holsapple, 2002). These calculations, of course, assume physical properties for the asteroids, and those properties are not well known in any particular case. Early laboratory experiments and subsequent basic physical and numerical simulations (Housen and Holsapple, 1990; Michel et al., 2004) show that when an asteroid is catastrophically disrupted, only one large fragment remains, and the size of that fragment shrinks with increasing energy of the impact. Furthermore, energy arguments imply that most of the other fragments disperse with velocities comparable to or greater than the escape velocity from the original body, that is, >1 meter per second for a kilometer-sized NEO. To the extent that these calculations and laboratory experiments are relevant, they suggest that disruption might leave one much smaller object on an impact trajectory, with most of the other pieces spreading out over a cross section much larger than Earth within less than a year. Thus disruption might be a useful mitigation technique. However, the uncertainties in the structure of NEOs are sufficiently large that this committee does not now have high enough confidence in the disruption approach to recommend it as a valid technique for mitigation at this time. Additional research, including a suite of independent calculations and laboratory experiments, but particularly including experiments on real comets and asteroids, might show that disruption is well enough understood to use as a mitigation technique. To avoid disruption, both kinetic impact and nuclear detonation approaches to orbit change benefit dramatically from using multiple events. (They also allow the effective orbit change of larger NEOs, but disruption is rarely an issue in that case.) This strategy also allows for the adjustment of the total effect when the hazardous object’s response to an event is not accurately predictable in advance. SUMMARY Figure 5.5 summarizes the range of parameter space in which each of the four types of mitigation could be considered primary, emphasizing the still-significant uncertainty in the boundaries between the various regimes. Other parameters (density of the NEO, details of the NEO’s orbit, probability of impact at a given warning time, etc.) all play a role in the uncertainty. Furthermore, civil defense should play a role in all of the regimes, and one might choose to apply multiple methods in a given case, thus further blurring the distinctions. Toward the left edge of the figure, representing short warning times, one would likely be able to carry out nothing but civil defense, unless disruption was shown to be reliable; toward the right edge of the figure, representing long warning times, the uncertainty in the prediction might discourage action. Toward the right half of the figure, there would often be time to design, build, and launch a mitigation mission. Toward the left half, one might need a mission ready to



85

MITIGATION

FIGURE 5.5 Approximate outline of the regimes of primary applicability of the four types of mitigation (see text for the many caveats associated with this figure). Image courtesy of Tim Warchocki.

launch on discovery of a hazardous NEO. Significant research efforts are needed to ensure success in large areas of the figure. This chapter has considered both the range of likely mitigation measures available to society and the circumstances in which each might be appropriately used, albeit with fuzzy boundaries. However, there are also issues related to reliability and robustness that need to be considered. In particular, if mitigation is needed, the stakes are much higher than for a typical scientific mission to deep space, and assured success is crucial. The general principle of “Do no harm” is also crucial. Assured success includes being certain that the mitigation will not increase the hazard. This assurance is particularly important when one must initiate a mission to change the orbit of an NEO before the probability of impact approaches unity, which will often be the case, since an orbit change could then, in principle, divert a near-miss object onto an impact trajectory. The principle is equally important in the much-less-likely circumstance of a late-discovered, large NEO for which the energy needed for the required orbit change approaches the energy needed for disruption. This need for assured success implies that, if time permits, a characterization mission prior to mitigation is highly desirable. The efficiency of orbit change in most approaches, the gravity tractor excepted, is very sensitive to some physical properties of the NEO, particularly the porosity and density in the outer tens of meters, that cannot be determined from remote sensing. An in situ characterization mission, if properly designed, can measure the key physical properties needed for reliable control of orbit change. Similarly, there is a need for verification of the orbit change. For most slow-push techniques the verification is straightforward, since there is a spacecraft near the NEO for the duration. If there were an advance characterization mission, that mission could also be configured for verification. Even if there were not time for a characterization mission, there might be time to launch



86


a verification mission that has a rendezvous with the NEO prior to the change in its orbit so as to measure this change; this approach should be implemented wherever possible. The committee also notes that civil defense is likely needed in all mitigation scenarios, not just in those situations for which it is the most cost-effective approach. One aspect of civil defense is educating the public about the nature of the hazard and the manner in which individuals should respond. Public information about the hazard is crucial. For those impacts that cause very localized damage on the ground, there may nonetheless be peripheral effects on climate, probably small and of short duration but important enough that the public needs to understand them. There may also be effects on infrastructure, such as on communications, that extend well outside the area of direct damage. Dealing with these issues is all part of civil defense preparedness. With the current uncertainty regarding both the properties of the NEOs themselves and the efficiency of an interaction with an NEO for kinetic and nuclear orbit change, and even from the general standpoint of confidence of success, functional redundancy is crucial. Instead of changing the orbit of an NEO with a single kinetic impactor, a series of impactors spread slightly in time provides much more reliability, and in some situations it might even allow assessment of the effect of the first impactor before the second arrived. Depending on the details of the specific orbit, it might be desirable and possible to divert later impactors, but the applicability of this concept needs further study. Alternatively, as long as there is a nuclear capability, one could consider readying a nuclear mission as a late-stage backup for a kinetic impactor that might, even with some very low probability, fail. Similarly, a kinetic impactor might be a backup for a gravity tractor on the chance that the gravity tractor might suddenly have a fuel leak or some other failure after a long but incomplete period of “pulling” the NEO. A nuclear detonation approach, however implemented, is likely to raise significant public concern. If an NEO capable of massive death and destruction was discovered with certainty to be on a collision path with Earth and if there was no other way to stop it, presumably any concerns about the nuclear approach would be overridden. But in the early mitigation planning stages, public concern might inhibit development. This is primarily a public policy, rather than a technical question, and is therefore outside the scope of this committee’s task. Similarly, as noted above in the section on “Nuclear Methods,” the question of whether to maintain a nuclear stockpile for NEO mitigation purposes is not a technical question. In this report, the committee has assumed that a nuclear stockpile and nuclear development capability are on hand for other purposes. Perhaps the most significant conclusion that can be drawn is the large uncertainty in the effectiveness of the mitigation techniques because of their dependence on the physical properties of NEOs that are not well known, and because of the difficulty of scaling any laboratory experiments to this regime. At this point it is not even possible to determine reliably the boundaries of applicability of the various approaches. In a later chapter the committee addresses organizational aspects of the decision-making process, but it still lacks information to guide that process. Any process must carry out a detailed study of where to draw the boundaries and what additional information would be needed. An applied research program, directed explicitly at the NEO hazard, could significantly reduce the uncertainties. At the lowest meaningful level of investigating the mitigation issues, this program would include both numerical simulations by multiple groups and laboratory experiments. A much-larger-scale effort to address the mitigation of NEO hazards will likely include activities in space. The single most-significant step in this area appears to be a kinetic impact mission on a far larger scale than the Deep Impact mission, employing a much larger impactor on a much smaller target, with another spacecraft that has a rendezvous with the target well prior to impact to characterize the target and its orbit very precisely. This characterizing spacecraft would remain with the target until long after the impact in order to determine accurately the change in its orbit resulting from the impact. The Don Quijote mission that was studied by the ESA but is no longer under active consideration would have addressed most of these goals. Suggestions have been made to use the rendezvous spacecraft as a gravity tractor after the primary mission, but given the different design considerations it is not yet clear whether this is a good approach or not. A demonstration flight of a gravity tractor appears to be the second most significant step, since lesser knowledge of NEO behavior is needed for implementation. Both the kinetic impact and gravity-tractor approaches require significant engineering study, but more basic knowledge is needed for the kinetic impactor. In cases of the late discovery of a hazardous NEO, the change in the NEO’s orbit that must be made for it to miss Earth can be so large that the required impact energy is comparable to or greater than the energy to disrupt



87

MITIGATION

the body. Depending on how the body disrupts, the effect on Earth could, in some circumstances, be worse overall than if disruption were not attempted. Alternatively, disruption might lead to less total damage to Earth but more damage to, for example, a particular populated location. With the uncertainty in the present understanding of fragmentation and disruption, the committee does not now endorse disruption as a mitigation strategy, but it suggests that further study of this issue should be an important part of any research program into mitigation of the NEO hazard. (See Chapter 6.) Finding: The mitigation of the threat from NEOs would benefit dramatically from their in situ characterization prior to mitigation if there is time. Finding: Changing the orbit of an NEO given the current level of understanding is sufficiently uncertain that, in most cases, it requires an accompanying verification. This is easy to implement with many slow-push techniques, but it would require considerable additional effort for other techniques. Recommendation: If Congress chooses to fund mitigation research at an appropriately high level, the first priority for a space mission in the mitigation area is an experimental test of a kinetic impactor along with a characterization, monitoring, and verification system, such as the Don Quijote mission that was previously considered, but not funded, by the European Space Agency. This mission would produce the most significant advances in understanding and provide an ideal chance for international collaboration in a realistic mitigation scenario. BIBLIOGRAPHY Abe, S., T. Mukai, N. Hirata, O.S. Barnouin-Jha, A.F. Cheng, H. Demura, R.W. Gaskell, T. Hashimoto, K. Hiraoka, T. Honda, T. Kubota, M. Matsuoka, T. Mizuno, R. Nakamura, D.J. Scheeres, and M. Yoshikawa. 2006. Mass and local topography measurements of Itokawa. Science 312:1344-1347. Ahrens, T.J., and A.W. Harris. 1992. Deflection and fragmentation of near-Earth asteroids. Nature 360(6403):429-433. Ahrens, T.J., and A.W. Harris. 1994. Deflection and fragmentation of near-Earth asteroids. In Hazards Due to Comets and Asteroids (T. Gehrels, ed.). University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Bedrossian, P.J. 2004. Neutrons and Granite: Transport and Activation. UCRL-TR-203529. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, Calif. Britt, D.T., D. Yeomans, K. Housen, and G. Consolmagno. 2002. Asteroid density, porosity, and structure. In Asteroids III. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Chesley, S.R., and T.B. Spahr. 2004. Earth-impactors: Orbital characteristics and warning times. Pp. 22-37 in Mitigation of Hazardous Comets and Asteroids (M.J.S. Belton, T.H. Morgan, N.H. Samarashinha, and D.K. Yeomans, eds.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, Mass. Dearborn, D.S. 2004. 21st century steam for asteroid mitigation. Planetary Defense Conference: Protecting Earth from Asteroids, Orange County, Calif. AIAA-2004-1413. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Reston, Va. DOE (Department of Energy). 2000. United States Nuclear Tests; July 1945 through September 1992. Report DOE/NV-209-REV 15. Department of Energy, Nevada Operations Office, Las Vegas, Nev. December. Available at http://www.nv.doe.gov/library/publications/historical/ DOENV_209_REV15.pdf. Fahnestock, E.G., and S.B. Broschart. 2009. Dynamical characterization, control, and performance analysis of gravity tractor operation at binary asteroids. First International Academy of Astronautics (IAA) Planetary Defense Conference: Protecting Earth from Asteroids, Granada, Spain, April 27-30, 2009. Fahnestock, E.G., and D.J. Scheeres. 2008. Dynamical characterization and stabilization of large gravity tractor designs. AIAA Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics 31(3):501-521. Giorgini, J.D., L.A.M. Benner, S.J. Ostro, M.C. Nolan, and M.W. Busch. 2008. �� Predicting the Earth encounters of (99942) Apophis. Icarus 193(1):1-19. Holsapple, K.A. 2002. The deflection of menacing rubble pile asteroids. Extended Abstracts Volume of the Workshop on Scientific Requirements for Mitigation of Hazardous Comets and Asteroids, Arlington, Virginia, on September 3-6, 2002. National Optical Astronomy Observatory, Tucson, Ariz. Available at http://www.noao.edu/meetings/mitigation/media/arlington.extended.pdf. Holsapple, K.A. 2004. An assessment of our present ability to deflect asteroids and comets. Planetary Defense Conference: Protecting Earth from Asteroids, Orange County, Calif. AIAA-2004-1413. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Reston, Va. Holsapple, K.A. 2009. On the “strength” of the small bodies of the solar system: A review of strength theories and their implementation for analyses of impact disruptions. Planetary and Space Science 57(2):127-141.



88


Housen, K.R., and K.A. Holsapple 1990. On the fragmentation of asteroids and planetary satellites. Icarus 84:226-253. Kahle, R., E. Kuhrt, G. Hahn, and J. Knollenberg. 2006. Physical limits of solar collectors in deflecting Earth-threatening asteroids. Aerospace Science and Technology 10(3):256-263. Lu, E.T., and S.G. Love. 2005. Gravitational tractor for towing asteroids. Nature 483:177-178. Melosh, H.J., I.V. Nemchinov, and Y.I. Zetzer. 1994. Non-nuclear strategies for deflecting comets and asteroids. Pp. 1111-1134 in Hazards from Comets and Asteroids (T. Geherls, ed.). University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Michel, P., W. Benz, and D.C. Richardson. 2004. Catastrophic disruption of asteroids and family formation: A review of numerical simulations including both fragmentation and gravitational reaccumulation. Planetary and Space Science 52:1109-1117. NASA PA&E (NASA Program Analysis and Evaluation). 2006. 2006 Near-Earth Object Survey and Deflection Study. NASA Headquarters, Washington, D.C. Niven, L., and J. Pournelle. 1977. �� Lucifer’s Hammer. Playboy Press, Chicago. Perozzi, E., L. Casalino, G. Colasurdo, A. Rossi, and G.B. Valsecchi. 2002. Resonant fly-by missions to near Earth asteroids. Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy 83(1-4):49-62. Shute, N. 1957. On The Beach. Ballantine Books, New York. Wie, B. 2008. Dynamics and control of gravity tractor spacecraft for asteroid deflection. Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics 31(5):1413-1423. Yeomans, D., S. Bhaskaran, S. Broschart, S. Chesley, M. J. P.W. Chodas, and T. Sweetser. 2008. Near-Earth Object (NEO) Analysis of Transponder Tracking and Gravity Tractor Performance. Report submitted to the B612 Foundation per JPL Task Plan No. 82-120022. Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif., September.



6 Research

Dealing with the hazards of near-Earth object (NEO) impact is complicated because it involves balancing the imprecisely known risks of this hazard against the costs, risks, and benefits of proposed responses. Since the NEO impact risk is partly probabilistic in nature, it is difficult to grasp and difficult to communicate unless and until an object is discovered that will hit Earth at some definite date not too far in the future. However, the probabilistic risk is similar to that for other types of natural disasters like earthquakes. Scientists have an idea of the likelihood that an earthquake of a given magnitude will strike a given region within a given time. The fundamental reasons why earthquakes occur are known (they are associated with plate tectonics), and it is known that the risks from earthquakes are particularly high in certain specific regions (e.g., near plate boundaries, in certain types of soil). However, no one can predict with confidence the date of the next great earthquake of magnitude 7 or larger that will strike San Francisco or Tokyo. Nevertheless, it is known from experience that such disasters will occur, and moreover experts can assess the likely damage. The United States and other countries around the world have responded to the risk of earthquakes by committing to various civil-defense and mitigation programs, including research programs. The U.S. federal and state governments dedicate resources to earthquake research in order to improve the understanding of the causes of the hazard, to better quantify risks and to improve the capabilities for prediction, and to increase the effectiveness of mitigation measures. Likewise, an appropriate and necessary aspect of mitigation of the NEO impact hazard is a research program. The scope of this research program on NEO impact hazards would ideally be targeted to address all of the areas in which uncertainties stemming from a lack of knowledge and/or understanding hamper scientists’ ability to quantify and mitigate the NEO impact risk. For instance, there is uncertainty as to the magnitude of the impact risk for several reasons. One reason is that the populations of small potential Earth impactors are poorly understood, so there is uncertainty even about the average impact rates by objects greater than 140 meters in diameter or greater than 50 meters in diameter. Another reason for the uncertainty with respect to the magnitude of the risk is that the fundamental natures of these bodies are not known: what they are made of, or to what extent they may be intact objects as opposed to heavily fractured, or even completely separate, components traveling together as loose, gravitationally bound aggregates. Some 15 percent of known NEOs have one or more satellites. Furthermore, even given knowledge of the size, impact energy, and fundamental nature of an impacting object, the effects of the impact on Earth are uncertain. They depend on whether and how high in the atmosphere the impactor may break up before hitting the surface, and on whether an impact occurs on shallow water, on deep water, or on land, or on any of the rock types found there. In addition, the impact effects would not necessarily be limited to local 89



90


or regional effects near the time and place of the impact, but could include, for large impacts, global climate change or tsunamis. But how large an impact and what kind of impact could cause these effects is still uncertain. A research program is needed to address all of these issues in order to assess and quantify the risks associated with the NEO impact hazard. The ability to mitigate the impact hazard, or even to define appropriate strategies for mitigating the hazard, likewise depends on the acquisition of the new knowledge and understanding that could be gained through a research program. Even if the only viable mitigation approach to an impending impact is to warn the population and to evacuate, better information is needed for making sound decisions. Under what conditions should warning be provided and when, and who should evacuate? If, however, there are available active mitigation options, like changing the orbit of an impactor, again better information is needed: One must be able to predict with confidence the response of an impactor to specific forms of applied forces, impacts of various types and speeds, or various types of radiant energy, such as x rays. The required information goes beyond the basic physical characterization that determines the size and mass of the impactor and includes surface and subsurface compositions, internal structures, and the nature of their reactions to various inputs. Just as the scope of earthquake research is not limited only to searching for and monitoring earthquakes, the scope of NEO hazard mitigation research should not be limited to searching for and detecting NEOs. A research program is a necessary part of an NEO hazard mitigation program. This research should be carried out in parallel with the searches for NEOs, and it should be broadly inclusive of research aimed at filling the gaps in present knowledge and understanding so as to improve scientists’ ability to assess and quantify impact risks as well as to support the development of mitigation strategies. This research needs to cover several areas discussed in the previous chapters of this report: risk analysis (Chapter 2), surveys and detection of NEOs (Chapter 3), characterization (Chapter 4), and mitigation (Chapter 5). The committee stresses that this research must be broad in order to encompass all of these relevant and interrelated subjects. Recommendation: The United States should initiate a peer-reviewed, targeted research program in the area of impact hazard and mitigation of NEOs. Because this is a policy-driven, applied program, it should not be in competition with basic scientific research programs or funded from them. This research program should encompass three principal task areas: surveys, characterization, and mitigation. The scope should include analysis, simulation, and laboratory experiments. This research program does not include mitigation space experiments or tests that are treated elsewhere in this report. Some specific topics of interest for this research program are listed below. This list is not intended to be exhaustive: • Analyses and simulations of ways to optimize search and detection strategies using ground-based or spacebased approaches or combinations thereof (see Chapter 3); • Studies of distributions of warning times versus sizes of impactors for different survey and detection approaches (see Chapter 2); • Studies of the remote-sensing data on NEOs that are needed to develop useful probabilistic bases for choosing active-defense strategies when warning times of impacts are insufficient to allow a characterization mission (see Chapter 4); • Concept studies of space missions designed to meet characterization objectives, including a rendezvous and/or landed mission and/or impactors; • Concept studies of active-defense missions designed to meet mitigation objectives, including a test of mitigation by impact with the measurement of momentum transfer efficiency to the target (see Chapter 5); • Research to demonstrate the viability, or not, of using the disruption of an NEO to mitigate against an impact; • The technological development of components and systems necessary for mitigation; • Analyses of data from airbursts and their ground effects as obtained by dedicated networks, including military systems and fireball (brighter than average meteor) observations; also analyses and simulations to assess



91

RESEARCH

the following: where, why, and how objects break up in the atmosphere; what the effects of airbursts are, including pulses of electromagnetic energy and consequences for communications and other infrastructure; and what the effects of target material properties for land or water impacts are; • Detailed, realistic analytical analyses and simulations to determine the risks of tsunami generation from water impact or airbursts of various types and sizes of impactors; • Joint analyses, when possible, of available data on airbursts and data on the corresponding surviving meteorites to establish ground truth; • Laboratory study of impact phenomena for a wide variety of impacting and impacted material (i.e., of various physical structures and properties) at speeds of collision up to the highest attainable so as to study, for example, the transfer of momentum to the target due to ejecta of material from it; • Leadership and organizational planning, both national and international; • The economic and political implications of an NEO impact; and • Behavioral research (including national and international workshops) for studying people’s perception of impact risks, including their mental models, and for increasing the understanding of their possible misconceptions and/or lack of knowledge, needed to develop appropriate plans and simulation exercises in preparation for a possible impact event.



7 National and International Coordination and Collaboration

Responding effectively to hazards posed by near-Earth objects (NEOs) requires the joint efforts of diverse institutions and individuals. Thus organization plays a key role that is just as important as the technical options. Because NEOs are a global threat, efforts to deal with them may involve international cooperation from the outset. This chapter discusses possible means to organize responses to those hazards at both the national and the international level. Arrangements at present are largely ad hoc and informal in the United States and abroad, and they involve both government and private entities. However, the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) has been directed by Congress to “recommend a federal agency or agencies to be responsible for protecting the United States from a near-Earth object . . . expected to collide with Earth” (NASA Authorization Act of 2008, P.L. 110-422). The OSTP is directed to produce such a recommendation by October 2010. EXISTING ORGANIZATIONS At the national level in the United States, the Minor Planet Center (MPC) at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, sponsored by the International Astronomical Union but funded about 90 percent by NASA, collects observations of all asteroids and comets made around the world. The MPC archives these observations, makes them publicly available, and computes orbits for all individual, identified objects. For any object that seems to pose a threat to Earth, the MPC director or designee has a reporting system to alert a NASA official and thence through specified government channels to alert the country at large. Also in the United States, individual observers and observatories are dedicated in whole or in part to discovering and observing NEOs. Further, NASA supports a group of researchers at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) that carries out accurate, long-term predictions of asteroid orbits, quantifies threats, and notifies NASA, as does the MPC, if a “threshold” is exceeded. The National Response Framework of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) seeks to coordinate the identification of threats and disaster response with communication and recovery challenges similar to that needed for NEO threats. However, at present, NEOs are not included in the framework. At the international level, there is one organization, the Near-Earth Object Dynamic Site (NEODyS) system in Pisa, Italy (with a mirror site in Spain), that monitors and publicizes all potentially hazardous objects. The explosion of the 2008 TC3 asteroid in an airburst over Sudan demonstrated that even in the absence of formal international organization, effective international communications may occur, despite limited advance warning. Formal integration of these elements, with agreed-to plans, roles, and responsibilities is needed well in advance of the identification of any specific threat. 92



NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL COORDINATION AND COLLABORATION

93

NATIONAL COOPERATION An effective, comprehensive approach to the NEO hazard will require significant planning, coordination, and cooperation within the U.S. government. It seems sensible to assign responsibility for this NEO hazards program to an existing governmental administrative structure, especially in view of the likely relatively small size of the undertaking. It also seems more efficient to place the program under the control of a single entity in coordination with other relevant government organizations. The coordination could be implemented by way of a standing committee or an interagency task force of the appropriate agencies to organize and lead the effort to plan and coordinate any action to be taken by the United States individually, or in concert with other nations. This committee or task force would have membership from each of the relevant national agencies (NASA and the National Science Foundation [NSF]) and executive departments (Defense, Energy, Homeland Security, Justice, and State), with the chair from the lead entity. (Other relevant agencies and departments might include the Departments of Transportation and of Health and Human Services, the Environmental Protection Agency, the General Services Administration, and the Department of Agriculture.) The first step of the standing committee or interagency task force would be to define the necessary roles and responsibilities of each member agency in addressing the various aspects of the threat, from surveying the sky through civil defense. The lead responsibility for a given task would be assigned to the appropriate agency or department. In view of the intrinsic international nature of the program, a civilian rather than a military agency would have advantages for housing it. Otherwise, one could envision continual internal conflict over military security and classification issues. Of course, any group will have such issues from time to time, but a civilian group could have far fewer such conflicts and also would likely be more acceptable to its counterparts in other nations. In an emergency, the military could be enlisted or appointed by the president to help; the military would maintain currency with the issues through membership in the standing committee or interagency task force. Among the civilian agencies and departments, NASA has the broadest and deepest familiarity with solar system objects and its associated rendezvous missions. The NSF supports ground-based solar system research, but it traditionally responds to proposals rather than initiating and organizing complex programs (the International Geophysical Year being one of the exceptions). The Departments of Defense and of Energy, however, have by far the most important experience with nuclear explosives, necessary for some active-defense missions for changing NEO orbits. For such missions and their preparations, these departments, or at least the latter, would certainly become involved, with coordination being maintained through the standing committee or task force described above. NASA is a possible choice for the lead agency. Within NASA, under its present organization, a natural home for this hazards program would be the Science Mission Directorate (SMD), which deals with solar system science. The current, small hazards programwith an approximately $4 million annual budgetis already housed in this directorate. But the hazards program discussed here would be more effective with its own director and budgetary line item(s) to ensure its viability within the much larger SMD. It would, of course, derive benefits from and provide benefits to the science and other programs in the SMD. Organization is also key when mitigation requires civil defense, primarily evacuation. Experience has driven home a lesson: Without prior training for it, evacuation has chaotic and often disastrous attributes. However, training from prior emergencies can yield very successful, almost trouble-free evacuation outcomes, at least in local areas. The “poster child” for such success is the evacuation of San Bernardino County, California, in the face of ferocious fires that attacked the region in the summer of 2007. The National Response Framework in the DHS is the part of the national government that deals with civil defense. Responsibility for planning for emergencies is centered within it. The framework is especially concerned with the coordination of the numerous local, state, regional, national, and nongovernmental organizations that are or should be involved in disaster anticipation, management, and relief of all kinds. NEOs could be added to and considered explicitly in this framework and would thus become a part of the planning and implementation of the disaster response of the United States. Any needed legislation to achieve this goal could be linked to any national and international policies and structures dealing with disaster prevention and management. The underwriting and insurance industry might be interested in providing actuarial input relevant to these matters.



94


Since the details of the asteroid and comet threat are unknown, a planning philosophy will be most effective if it is based on the need to be flexible and generic. This is necessary because of the wide variety of potential hazards, from airbursts through land impacts to tsunamis, with each covering a broad span of possible severities. The chief unknown with respect to NEO hazards planning will be the size of the need, but if huge, the peril will probably be defined well in advance. In addition to planning a flexible response, a trained cadre of professionals must obtain and set up the equipment and supplies needed to sustain a displaced population. Such preparatory issues are not confined to the asteroid and comet hazard, but have common elements with all other natural hazards, such as earthquakes, fires, and hurricanes. All of the common elements may be treated similarly and by the same personnel. It makes sense, in any national activity in this civil-defense sphere, to coordinate and collaborate with other nations in the planning and, depending on circumstances, in the implementing of responses to an impending impact event. INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION The probability of a devastating NEO impact in the United States is small compared to the likelihood of an impact in other nations, most with far fewer resources to detect, track, and defend against an incoming NEO. The NEO hazard, however, is such that a single country, acting unilaterally, could potentially solve the problem. Although the United States has a responsibility to identify and defend against threats with global consequences, this nation does not have to bear the full burden for such programs. There have been several international efforts to characterize objects in the near-Earth environment, but these studies have generally been driven by scientific curiosity and were not designed to address the risk of NEOs. As NEO survey requirements evolve to fainter objects and as mitigation strategies are refined, additional resources will be necessary, and these could be provided by other developed countries. International partnerships can be sought with other science organizations, notably but not exclusively space agencies, in the areas of surveys, characterization, and mitigation technologies. NEO discovery rates and survey completeness could be significantly enhanced through the coordinated use of telescopes owned and operated by other nations. Future NEO space missions, carried out by the United States, by other nations, or through the cooperation of various countries, could be optimized for characterization that enables the development and refinement of mitigation strategies. Space missions to test such strategies could also be developed on a cooperative basis with other nations, making use of the resulting complementary capability. While a coordinated intergovernmental program would be needed to address the full spectrum of activities associated with NEO surveys, characterization, and mitigation, an important first step in this direction would be to establish an international partnership, perhaps of space agencies, to develop a comprehensive strategy for dealing with NEO hazards. Many scientists, especially among the world’s planetary scientists, have been concerned for well over a decade with the danger posed to Earth from the impact of an asteroid or a comet. Officials from various nations have echoed these concerns. Thus a substantial and important component of the existing international cooperation is the informal contact among professional scientists and engineers, mainly of space-faring nations, but also including some other countries. International conferences and small meetings, as well as the Internet, have allowed experts in different aspects of space science and technology, including asteroid detection and mitigation, to know their counterparts in other nations personally. Such connections often lead to offers of or requests for aid in the solution of common problems arising in the course of these experts’ work. Veterans of the U.S. or Russian space programs often participate either openly or behind the scenes in the European Space Agency and the Japanese Space Agency and in Indian and Chinese space activities. Nuclear-weapons designers in both Russia and the United States have often met to discuss the use of nuclear explosives to effect asteroid orbit changes. In the event of a sudden emergency due to the discovery of a threatening NEO, it is likely that people forming this international network would be the first to communicate with one another and to consider responses to the threat. For instance, when an observatory in Arizona discovered NEO 2008 TC3 only 19 hours before its impact in Sudan, the informal network of amateur and professional astronomers in many countries responded in time for thousands of observations of the object to be made and communicated to the MPC, thus allowing an extremely accurate prediction of the time (

Defending Planet Earth: Near-Earth Object Surveys and Hazard Mitigation Strategies

Defending Planet Earth: Near-Earth Object Surveys and Hazard Mitigation Strategies

Near-Earth Object Surveys and Hazard Mitigation Strategies: Interim Report

Object Modeling and Design Strategies

Adaptation and Mitigation Strategies for Climate Change

Hazard

Hazard

Natural Hazard Mitigation Policy: Implementation, Organizational Choice, and Contextual Dynamics

California Earthquakes: Science, Risk, and the Politics of Hazard Mitigation

Hazard

Hazard

Tales from Planet Earth

Hazard

Tales from Planet Earth

Tales from Planet Earth

Tales From Planet Earth

Mitigation

Tales from Planet Earth

Planet Called Earth

Tales from Planet Earth

Mission Earth Doomed Planet

Geodesy for Planet Earth

Hazard

Hazard

Hazard

Hazard

Hazard

Our dynamic planet: Earth and life

Our dynamic planet: Earth and life, Glossary

Our dynamic planet: Earth and life

One Million Things: Planet Earth

Defending Planet Earth: Near-Earth Object Surveys and Hazard Mitigation Strategies